[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:09] Good afternoon. I, acting city clerk Grace Rocha convened the city of Palm Desert regular meetings of the city council successor agency to the Palm Desert redevelopment and housing authority for Thursday, May 14, 2020.
[0:26] Roll call will be taken during the open session at about four o'clock p.m.
[0:32] Instructions and options for public participation via email or voicemail for this virtual meeting
[0:38] was provided on the agenda. No public comment was received for closed session items. Meeting
[0:45] adjourned to closed session at this time. 301 p.m.
[0:53] Gina, I see that I'm leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Is it still appropriate to
[0:57] ask everybody to stand?
[0:59] Well, I hope you know. Okay. All right. Well then, we're ready then. So, I reconvene the
[1:07] meetings of the Palm Desert City Council successor agency to the redevelopment agency and housing
[1:13] authority meeting for Thursday, May 14th, 2020. Are there any reportable actions from closed session?
[1:24] Madam Mayor, I see that we are currently missing the city attorney and I'm going to ask Clay
[1:30] if he has the attorney available and if so if he can promote him to a panelist.
[1:37] In the meantime we could take roll call. There he is. All
[1:46] right can you hear me? Yes we can.
[1:49] All right I've been let out of the waiting room I guess. There were no
[1:55] reportable actions taken in close session thank you. Okay now we can take a roll call please.
[2:01] Councilmember Hartick.
[2:04] Here.
[2:05] Councilman Jonathan.
[2:09] Here.
[2:10] Mayor Pertin Kelly.
[2:11] Here.
[2:12] Councilmember Weber.
[2:19] Councilmember Weber, are you muted?
[2:23] I think we lost her.
[2:26] And Mayor Nistandi.
[2:28] Here.
[2:29] So I assume we need to wait for Councilmember Weber?
[2:32] I think so.
[2:58] I learned that Troy and Councilmember Weber are working on it.
[3:16] Maybe we can proceed with the pledge while she's working out
[3:19] technical issues? I believe I did achieve this.
[3:30] Council Member Weber, can you hear us? Well,
[3:34] apparently my microphone is not working, so I'm on the computer. Okay. Here you will.
[3:43] All present
[3:44] for the meeting.
[3:46] Okay. With that, Council Member Jonathan, will you lead us in the Pledge of
[3:51] Allegiance? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Would you all stand? Place your hand over your heart
[3:58] And join me in honoring our great country. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[4:19] Okay, and Council Member Harnick, would you please lead us in a invocation?
[4:24] I would be happy to. We all know that this is an extraordinary and unprecedented time
[4:34] of confusion and frustration, a little bit of fear of the unknown, and certainly we've
[4:40] all seen acts of extraordinary kindness. So we will get through this, and we will heal,
[4:46] and we will find opportunity where we haven't found it yet, and I'm sure of that. And
[4:52] And I'd like to share a very fitting, one of my favorite quotes of Abraham Lincoln, with
[4:58] malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to
[5:05] see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation
[5:11] wounds.
[5:12] Abraham Lincoln.
[5:13] Thank you.
[5:16] Thank you, Council Member Harnick.
[5:18] That was very inspirational.
[5:20] All right.
[5:21] So, we will move on now to oral communications, oh excuse me, awards and presentations, although
[5:28] we have none.
[5:29] So now we'll move on to oral communications.
[5:32] Because this is there.
[5:33] Mayor.
[5:34] Oh, yes.
[5:35] This is the moment where you add, you vote on, to add the item to the agenda.
[5:43] Mayor, you are muted.
[5:45] Thank you.
[5:46] Councilmember Kathleen Kelly would like us to add an emergency motion to discuss
[5:53] the wearing of face masks and it requires a four fifth approval added to the agenda
[6:00] today. Move to add. Second. I think we all have to vote. So Councilmember
[6:09] Harnick. Yes. Councilman Jonathan. Yes. Mayor Parton Kelly. Yes. Councilmember
[6:17] councilmember Weber.
[6:21] Councilmember Weber. Yes. Mayor Nistandi. Yes. Okay, that motion carries
[6:27] five zero to add the item to the agenda and that is request for consideration to adopt
[6:33] the city of La Quinta's approach to the issue of facial coverings and social distancing
[6:39] when inside stores or businesses and that motion carried. Thank you.
[6:47] Okay. All right.
[6:50] for communications because this is a virtual meeting posted agenda provided
[6:55] instructions for how people can participate via email or voicemail so
[6:59] I'll ask the acting city clerk if she has received any public comments yes I
[7:06] did I received two to read out loud and one voicemail the first one is from
[7:13] Brad Anderson from Rancho Mirage it says dear please Pondesert City
[7:20] Council members. Please accept my apologies if this communication is unwelcome by certain
[7:27] Council members. The City of Palm Desert has allowed the repeated reappointment of Mr. Doug
[7:33] Walker as the representative of the City of Palm Desert to the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector
[7:38] Control District. Please be mindful that Mr. Walker is the only original Coachella Valley
[7:46] Mosquito and Vector Control Trustee that served on the board while it was investigated by
[7:52] the Riverside County Grand Jury and remains the longest seated member currently assigned
[7:58] to that board. Since March 2007 to current date, please consider reviewing that appointment
[8:05] and or actively allow other well qualified persons to apply for future opening to serve
[8:11] on that board. Please consider reviewing methods that the city has mandated for city meetings.
[8:18] Addressing the topic of public comment or communications, as is the city requires an email and or voicemail
[8:27] to be directed to the city at least one hour prior to the meeting. I urge the city to
[8:32] have arrangements available for members of the public to observe and or participate
[8:37] paid in the public's business during the actual meeting.
[8:42] The public currently has no direct contact or input during open public meetings and has
[8:47] no ability to modify their comments to the reactions of other comments that may have
[8:53] been submitted.
[8:55] If the council members can be actively present during remotely attended public meetings,
[9:00] the public should be allowed to have that ability as well.
[9:04] Sincerely, Brad Anderson.
[9:05] The next one is from Becky Robinson from Cathedral City.
[9:14] Dear council members, I live in
[9:16] Cathedral City but I shop in Palm Desert. Please pass an emergency ordinance tonight
[9:22] requiring face coverings in all stores and follow the lead of Palm Springs,
[9:26] Cathedral City, Coachella and Desert Hot Springs. I and most of the people I know will not
[9:31] enter into any establishment that does not require mats. In addition, I implore you not
[9:37] to sign the letter from Supervisor Manny Perez asking the governor to allow the Board of Supervisors
[9:44] to determine when to further open the country rather than following the orders of the state.
[9:49] After the supervisors showed that they do not care about the health and safety of our
[9:54] residents, by lifting the mandatory orders last Friday, we should not trust them with
[9:59] our health and safety.
[10:01] Thank you for your consideration, Becky Robinson.
[10:03] set.
[10:07] And the next one I have to do a share screen to play it.
[10:43] I was
[10:50] afraid of that but
[10:51] that was a voicemail so I'm going to read what I kind of wrote her comments and they're
[10:58] from Judith Green who lives on Skyward Way and she is concerned about any lifting of the
[11:04] wearing of the mask. She is a retired nurse and who has worked in the field for over 30
[11:10] years. The least people can do is continue wearing their mask, which she strongly encouraged
[11:17] everyone to do. That was the gist of her message.
[11:23] That's it.
[11:24] Okay. Thank you, Gracie, for that information and all communications.
[11:30] All right. We will move on then to the consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar for each legislative body convening on this date.
[11:40] And consider to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote as indicated on the first agenda of the regular meetings.
[11:48] there will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the city council,
[11:52] successor agency board of directors, closing authority board or members of the public request
[11:58] specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action
[12:04] under the subsequent section and sense items held over. And I'll start with council member
[12:11] Weber. Are there any items you wish to pull? No, I don't need it pulled, but I would
[12:16] like to make a comment regarding the minutes. I'd like to extend great thanks to the staff
[12:23] for putting together these minutes. These are extremely difficult to do with listening
[12:28] to all of us on our, like today I can't use my microphone, which is unfortunate, so that
[12:33] means I'm relying on a microphone that cuts in and out. So thank you to staff for taking
[12:38] the time and effort to present our minutes because they are a great historic nature.
[12:44] That's all. That's I don't have anything to pull though. Thank you.
[12:51] Okay mayor pro tem
[12:53] Kathleen Kelly. Nothing to. All right, Councilmember Harnick. Nothing. Thank you. Councilmember
[13:01] Jonathan. Okay. I'll move approval. Thank you in a second. Second. All right. Let's
[13:12] I have a roll call.
[13:14] Thank you, Grace.
[13:15] Council Member Harnick?
[13:17] Yes.
[13:18] Councilman Jonathan?
[13:19] Yes.
[13:20] Mayor Pertin Kelly?
[13:21] Yes.
[13:22] Council Member Weber?
[13:24] Yes.
[13:24] Mayor Nescandi?
[13:26] Yes.
[13:27] Motion carries by zero.
[13:38] Okay, we'll move on to ordinances.
[13:41] For introduction, we do not have any.
[13:45] For adoption, we have ordinance number 1356
[13:50] and ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California adding
[13:55] section 2.38040 to chapter 2.38 the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to
[14:03] election of City Council members by districts and ranked choice voting.
[14:11] Mayors of this members of the City Council this is second reading of a
[14:15] proposed ordinance that the council has debated in depth and worked on for
[14:20] months now and it would establish two districts for voting for election of City Council members
[14:28] beginning in the year 2020. Do we have any emails or voicemails on this issue? No, we
[14:36] do not. All right. Then we need a motion. Second?
[14:47] All right. City Clerk, please take
[14:49] a roll call. Thank you. Councilmember Harnick? Yes.
[15:00] Councilman Jonathan? Yes. Mayor Pertinkelly? Yes. Councilmember Weber? Yes. Mayor Nistandi? Yes. Motion carries by zero.
[15:13] Okay.
[15:14] Then we're
[15:19] going to move on to new business. Request for approval? I
[15:29] believe that somebody
[15:31] That means to mute their microphone.
[15:35] There we go.
[15:39] Request for approval to initiate proceedings to levy the annual assessment for City of
[15:44] Palm Desert Benefit Assessment District No. 1 for fiscal year 2020-2021.
[15:50] Is there a staff report?
[15:55] Mayor Nistande and members of the City Council, Tom Metz, Deputy City Treasurer of Finance
[16:01] Department.
[16:02] The staff requests that Council approve the start-up proceedings to levy the annual assessment
[16:08] for City of Palm Desert Benefit Assessment District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
[16:16] Staff recommends that Council further waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2020-42
[16:26] 2. Initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments for City of Palm
[16:31] Desert Benefit Assessment District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
[16:38] And Resolution No. 2020-43 declaring its attention to levy the annual assessment for City of
[16:46] Palm Desert Benefit Assessment District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-21 pursuant to the
[16:53] the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 and appointing a time and place for the public hearing on
[17:00] these matters.
[17:04] Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? I got on this one, raise your hand if you
[17:10] have a question. Seeing none, do we have a motion?
[17:14] I move approval. Is that questions?
[17:17] No, I don't think we do. I don't see any raised hands.
[17:19] I'll move approval, please.
[17:21] Second?
[17:23] Second.
[17:23] We have a second.
[17:24] All right, City Clerk we could take a roll call. Councilmember Hardik. Yes. Councilman Jonathan. Yes. Mayor Potemkelly. Yes. Councilmember Weber. Yes. Mayor Nistandi. Yes. Motion carries 5-0.
[17:41] Thank you. Moving on, request for approval to initiate proceedings to levy and collect annual
[17:49] assessments within and to grant preliminary approval of the engineer's annual levy report
[17:54] for consolidated Tom Desert landscaping and lighting maintenance district number one for fiscal
[18:00] year 2020-2021. And again, do we have a staff report? Yes, Tom Mets, deputy city treasurer
[18:08] Finance. Staff recommends that Council further read and adopt resolution number 2020-44 initiating
[18:17] proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for consolidated palm desert
[18:22] landscaping and lighting maintenance district number one for fiscal year 2020-2021 and resolution
[18:31] resolution number 2020-45 declaring the intent to levy and collect annual assessments within
[18:38] and granting preliminary approval of the engineer's annual levy report for consolidated palm
[18:45] district landscaping and lighting maintenance district number one for fiscal year 2020
[18:50] slash 2021.
[18:55] Thank you for that staff report and if there's any questions of staff of the council members
[19:01] please raise your hand okay then seeing none do we have a motion to approve approval second
[19:10] all right city clerk if we could have a roll call councilmember harness yes councilman
[19:17] jonathan yes mayor pertin kelly yes councilmember weber yes mayor nistandy yes motion carries
[19:26] 5-0.
[19:29] Okay, thank you. The next item. Request for award of contract for
[19:36] Landscape Maintenance Area Number 16 to Vintage Associates Incorporated in an
[19:41] annual amount of $342,000 and include repair work and services for an annual
[19:46] amount of $80,000. Contract Number C-39820. Project Number 916-21. Staff
[19:56] report please.
[20:02] Good afternoon Madam Mayor City Council members this is Randy Chavez the
[20:06] landscape supervisor. The staff report you have before you is for LMA 16 which is a reorganization
[20:12] of current landscape maintenance park and landscape maintenance areas and I would be more happy to
[20:20] answer any questions. I have a question.
[20:26] Please. Thank you. I see this as part of
[20:31] Homie Adams Park. What is it that we do there?
[20:35] Homie Adams Park. We maintain the trash cans, the part shelters.
[20:41] We also do some pruning, open, keep the trail ahead free of debris.
[20:48] There is a lot of litter, so it's more litter pickup than anything else.
[20:56] You know, I'm there a lot and I thank you because I wanted to do that.
[20:59] No, I don't. Thank you.
[21:02] You're welcome.
[21:03] Any, Council Member Jonathan.
[21:06] Just quickly, I wanted to thank and commend Randy Chavez and staff for a couple of things that he did. Number one, recognize that often we get artificially low bids with an intention by the bidder to just kind of jack up the prices with change orders and so on and so forth and you've addressed that in your new procedure and I applaud you for doing that.
[21:29] And also for adding area number 18 in order to be cost effective and, you know, have a more comprehensive proposal. So you've got the city's back and we appreciate it.
[21:40] Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you.
[21:45] Okay. Seeing no other questions, do we have a motion to approve?
[21:50] Second.
[21:52] Right. City Clerk, please roll call.
[21:54] Councilmember Harnick.
[21:55] Yes.
[21:56] Councilman Jonathan.
[21:58] Yes.
[21:58] Mayor Patem Kelly.
[22:01] Yes.
[22:02] Councilmember Weber.
[22:04] Yes.
[22:04] Mayor Nisdandy.
[22:06] Yes.
[22:07] Mayor Potion Carries.
[22:09] Five zero.
[22:11] Thank you.
[22:12] All right.
[22:13] Next is the Request for Award of Contract for Landscape Maintenance Area Number One for
[22:18] Urban Habitat for an annual amount of $211,586.40 and authorized repair work and services
[22:27] basis for an annual amount of $45,000 contract number C-39850 project number 901-21. Is there
[22:36] a staff report? Good afternoon, Council Members and Mayor Nisdandi, Randy Chavez, Landscape
[22:43] Supervisor. Again, this Landscape Maintenance Area Number 1 is a reorganization of current
[22:50] landscape maintenance areas. We consolidated landscape area number one, two, and four to create this new landscape maintenance area number one.
[22:59] I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[23:02] See if we have any questions. Any more questions? Seeing no one, do we have a motion to approve?
[23:10] Move to approve.
[23:12] Second.
[23:14] Second.
[23:15] Okay, thank you.
[23:16] City Clerk please take a roll call vote. Councilmember Harnick. Yes. Councilman
[23:22] Jonathan. Yes. Mayor Patem Kelly. Yes. Councilmember Weber. Yes. Mayor Nistandi.
[23:29] Yes. Motion carries five zero. Thank you. Next is the Request for Award of
[23:36] Contract for the Monterey Avenue pavement rehabilitation project, the
[23:40] construction company in the amount of three million one hundred forty seven
[23:44] dollars wait three point one four seven million one hundred fifty three thousand
[23:50] contract number C three nine nine two zero project number seven five two dash
[23:56] one nine. Is there a staff report?
[24:05] I was going to introduce Ryan but now he's on.
[24:12] Sorry about that I got dropped. Good evening Mayor and members of City
[24:17] Council. This is Ryan Gailer from Public Works Department. The item before you is the award of
[24:23] the Payment Rehabilitation Project on Monterey Avenue. This project is going to be a joint project
[24:28] with the City of Rancho Maraj and it'll restore this segment of Monterey to brand new.
[24:34] You have a report there? Are there any questions?
[24:41] I, well, I'll go left to right. We sit on the dais.
[24:45] Council Member, I'm glad you were raising your hand.
[24:48] Yes, for clarification, I thought we had just done that, like, in the last couple of three
[24:53] years, that section on our side.
[24:56] It's been about eight or ten years ago.
[24:59] It seems like the other day.
[25:01] All right, thank you.
[25:03] Okay.
[25:04] Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Kelly,
[25:07] I don't think she has any questions.
[25:08] I'll move on to Council Member Harnick.
[25:15] And I know, Councilmember Jonathan, you were about to raise your hand.
[25:19] So, ask away.
[25:21] Thank you, Mayor.
[25:23] Ryan, I was just wondering, you know, Monterey is kind of a patchwork when it comes to designated
[25:28] bike lanes, and this particular area does not have any, and it's rather dangerous
[25:32] and forces cyclists to go on the sidewalk, which is not a good thing in that particular
[25:37] area.
[25:38] So I'm wondering, since we're repaving and we're going to be redrawing lanes and lines,
[25:45] would it be possible to incorporate designated bike lanes throughout Monterey
[25:53] as part of this project?
[25:57] I'm afraid that it would take a lot more than we have time for.
[26:02] There's a lot that goes into designating bike lanes and lane widths.
[26:07] We, in this segment, there's a lot of places
[26:10] where Monterey Avenue is only four lanes wide,
[26:14] you know, two lanes northbound, two lanes southbound.
[26:16] And there's not a whole lot of room
[26:18] to put those bike lanes in.
[26:20] And that would reduce, moderate a one lane in one place.
[26:24] This is something that would take a lot more study
[26:27] before we would want to pull the trailer
[26:29] on something like that.
[26:32] I kind of knew that might be your answer,
[26:34] but I thought I'd put it out there, Ryan.
[26:35] And who knows, you know, on the Rancho Marash side,
[26:39] there's a lot of room and a lot of landscaping,
[26:43] and they'd probably volunteer to do it on their side,
[26:45] I'm sure, at their cost.
[26:47] Probably so.
[26:50] Okay, thank you for that.
[26:53] All right, then if there aren't any more questions,
[26:57] do we have a motion to approve?
[27:00] So moved.
[27:02] In a second?
[27:03] Second.
[27:03] All right, City Clerk if you would take roll call for us. Thank you. Councilmember Hardik. Yes. Councilman Jonathan. Yes. Mayor Pertip Kelly. Yes. Councilmember Weber. Yes. Mayor Nistandi. Yes. Motion carries 5-0.
[27:23] Okay. Thank you. Consideration to staff and purchase a paramedic squad at fire station
[27:30] number 71 is part of the fire department's fiscal year 2020-2021 budget request. Staff
[27:38] report please.
[27:50] Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, Councilman.
[27:52] Can everyone hear me okay?
[27:56] I have the microphone right on my mouth so is that better?
[28:02] That sounds good.
[28:03] Okay, I'm going to start off the first of all,
[28:06] I'm Steven Arion as the upon desert risk manager.
[28:09] I have a presentation on tonight's topic.
[28:12] I'd like to share with the council.
[28:14] So I'm going to be sharing my screen here.
[28:22] So I would like to start off with some comments
[28:24] before we delve into the data that I'm about to present.
[28:28] I would first like to acknowledge the assistance
[28:30] of our two battalion chiefs,
[28:33] Chief Brian White and Chief Mike Beverly.
[28:35] They were really integral in developing this proposal and helping the many late nights to help form it.
[28:44] Little did they know that their jobs would be more statisticians this month than the natural firefighters.
[28:49] So a big thank you to them.
[28:52] I also want to note that our original budget proposal $14.6 billion does not take into account savings from not having a local
[29:00] Fire Marshal Office at City Hall, and I'll touch upon that topic later on in the presentation.
[29:07] And our budget is based on, we looked at the fiscal year 2018-19 national expenditures
[29:13] and increased it by 3%.
[29:16] At the time we did not have the fire cost estimate, so their amount may be different,
[29:22] but keep in mind that that schedule they provide us, they budget at the fully burdened
[29:27] top step, which is not a true reflection of our costs.
[29:29] I also want to note that the Public Safety Commission did have the opportunity to review
[29:34] this matter at a virtual Zoom meeting yesterday.
[29:36] It was a long and lengthy discussion and a good discussion and I'll touch upon their
[29:40] recommendation later in the report as well.
[29:44] So the first question that comes to mind for many of you and I'm sure many of the
[29:48] people that are watching virtually is what is a paramedic squad?
[29:51] in a paramedic squad.
[30:00] But is it a medic unit? Is it an engine? The answer actually is neither. And this photo
[30:05] shows what the vehicle looks like. It's an advanced life support vehicle with a crew of two staff
[30:11] per shift consisting of an engineer and paramedic. That's important to note. It's not just two
[30:16] staff. It's two staff per shift. So we're looking at a total of four positions approximately.
[30:23] It does not provide patient transport. However, it will supplement existing resources and alleviate demand on the emergency response system.
[30:34] The vehicle is an adaptable and lower cost solution in responding to the city's increasing calls for service within station 71's primary response area.
[30:47] And I'll frequently refer to this as the PRA, and that's what I mean by PRA, it's the
[30:51] primary response area.
[30:53] So the PRA of the station is very densely populated, and as you know, it has many subacute and
[30:59] skilled nursing facilities, and we went ahead and there's a document within your packet,
[31:04] and those are, that shows that total, which is a total of nine of these such facilities.
[31:08] And these, the combination of being densely populated with so many of these skilled
[31:13] nursing facilities really increases the call volume and response times for this station.
[31:20] So although primarily for advanced life support response, the Paramedic Squad can provide additional
[31:26] staffing for other emergency incidents. It adds redundancy to the center of the city.
[31:31] And in the map I'm going to show you later on, you'll see that that center of the city really
[31:35] gets a lot of activity. It's where we see the most emergency incidents happening within
[31:39] And this vehicle helped decrease overall response times in that area.
[31:45] It really is an all-purpose vehicle with response capabilities for numerous emergency incidents.
[31:52] I also do want to point out that as build out in the northern part of the city occurs,
[31:57] it's anticipated that a fourth fire station will be required.
[32:01] Once this new station is completed, the benefit of having a squad already in place
[32:06] is that we can take that staffing that exists and transfer it over and fulfill
[32:11] approximately half of the required staffing from the new station. A total
[32:15] five staff would be needed for a new station. We can at least cover two of
[32:20] those when we look at that whenever that may be.
[32:26] So I do want to get into
[32:28] this table which shows response times for station 71 as well as our two
[32:33] other stations. These are our town center station which is station 33 over
[32:38] by the mall and also our what we call our Mesa View fire station which is in the south part of
[32:43] the city also known as station 67. So this table shows what has been the response times over the
[32:52] last five year for code three responses and to give you an idea what code three calls include
[32:57] there they include but are not limited to cardiac emergencies strokes and diabetic
[33:01] emergencies. So these are calls you really want to have a fire engine and medic unit
[33:06] at your location quickly as possible.
[33:10] I do want to note out some discrepancies here.
[33:13] You'll notice that for station 71, in 2018,
[33:16] you see a slight increase in response times.
[33:20] And that wasn't because we had less calls.
[33:22] That was actually because there was a remodel
[33:25] at Indian Wells Fire Station,
[33:27] which required their ambulance
[33:29] to be temporarily housed at station 71.
[33:32] So this second ambulance accounts for that 3% increase.
[33:36] You also see the response times are pretty excellent for Fire Station 33.
[33:42] And part of that reason is that there is, if you'll recall, that we have a ladder truck that we share with the city of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells,
[33:49] and that ladder truck is stationed at 33.
[33:52] So that helps alleviate some of that engine's calls.
[33:54] And you see that's what helps increase those response times similar to what we're trying to do with 71 with the squad vehicle,
[34:00] as it's not really cost effective to have a ladder truck at that station.
[34:04] And then the last thing I want to note is you'll see 67 doesn't look as good as the S33.
[34:11] It looks pretty much on par with 71.
[34:14] And it's not that there's so many calls that they can't handle, but that engine and that medic unit responds to numerous calls up Highway 74,
[34:24] which increases the time to respond, but it's not really attributable to call volume.
[34:33] So, this next slide shows that the total in 2019 of all code 3 calls, these are, you know,
[34:42] your cardiac emergencies, your very acute medical care emergencies. Fire Station 71
[34:48] was about 639 calls of those code 3 calls were over 5 minutes. And if you look at the two
[34:55] other stations we have in the city, combined, they account for 57 percent of Station 71's
[35:01] total calls over five minutes, which really shows you the impact that the call volume is
[35:07] having on this station compared to our other two stations.
[35:13] These are some interesting statistics here.
[35:16] So to provide a comparison of all the different top 10 primary response areas within Riverside
[35:23] County, you see that North Palm Desert falls in at number two, so much so that we have
[35:28] a higher call volume locally than Desert Hot Springs in India, just in the North Palm Desert.
[35:33] And to give you even a further example, this call volume of 5,201 calls for 2019, I looked
[35:41] at the two busiest stations in two cities, Minneapolis and in Boston, Massachusetts.
[35:48] Those two fire stations have approximately 9,000 to 10,000 roughly calls per year.
[35:55] So you're looking that our small station in Palm Desert has about half the calls that a station in Boston and Minneapolis is doing the busiest station, I should say.
[36:06] And keep in mind that these other stations, they have three units and have a population in the hundreds of thousands. So that's pretty significant to know right then and there.
[36:19] This also shows you the top 10 units overall within the county and engine 71 is right there at the top.
[36:26] It's the busiest engine, the busiest resource out of the entire Riverside County,
[36:33] and, you know, the state, you know, numbers are great, but I think visuals are a lot better.
[36:40] They say they speak volumes, and you'll notice on this map in the center, there's a white dot.
[36:45] That is where the Fire Station 71 is located.
[36:48] And this is basically a heat density map that shows where all the responses are that they're going to.
[36:58] You'll see that part of the pun, the hottest action is a long country club and you'll see
[37:04] that it basically is where primarily all the responses are in.
[37:10] It also coincides with where we have our skilled nursing facilities.
[37:14] You'll notice there's also a little bit of overrun into Rancho Mirage as well and I'll
[37:20] get to that in a little bit too.
[37:24] So I talked about the impact that the response times have, but another issue and probably just as equally important, if not more important is the growing concern that these elevated response times and the harmful effect it has on our personnel.
[37:42] So Station 71 is currently staffed by a total of five personnel per shift.
[37:47] So, an average station in the county runs approximately 1,800 calls of service, and they generally spend about three and a half hours per day on an average day responding to calls.
[38:01] You'll see in 71, they're actually responding almost 10 hours versus that three and a half hours.
[38:07] And the most important number here at the very bottom, you'll see that sleep.
[38:12] They're averaging about four hours of sleep.
[38:14] And that's not full, continuous uninterrupted sleep.
[38:18] That's throughout the day.
[38:20] So on average, our staff, they're averaging 12 hours of interrupted sleep over three days.
[38:26] And that was going to greatly diminish their operational readiness.
[38:30] So we fear that if no mitigating action is implemented at the station,
[38:34] There's going to be a real negative effect to the safety of not only the public but also our firefighters.
[38:44] So now I'd like to talk a little bit about the startup costs. There was a little bit of confusion during the last Council study session on this item.
[38:53] You'll see that the total startup cost is about $1.2 million.
[38:57] There are four positions in total we're looking at. We're looking at two firefighter apparatus engineers and two firefighter paramedics.
[39:05] You'll see the difference between those positions is about $2,000.
[39:09] It's not much, but it's important to have an engineer in place because they provide
[39:14] additional command and control.
[39:16] They can help respond to emergency incidents, help alleviate the incident commander.
[39:21] So it's important to have that more senior position in this squad.
[39:25] And the annual reoccurring cost after our year one estimated cost is about $957,000.
[39:33] about $867,000 is going to be your staffing cost for that.
[39:43] So I want to talk a little about ancillary services.
[39:46] So when you look at the police budget, you'll see that they have basic patrol functions,
[39:52] but they also have these extra special teams, these ancillary services that help contribute
[40:00] to that overall policing effort.
[40:02] So we're talking about the special enforcement team, the burglary research fashion team
[40:07] or motor team, and those are all beneficial in the overall law enforcement program.
[40:14] Unlike the police department, we don't have that capability really in the fire department.
[40:19] There's really only two additional services we can look at when looking at reducing the
[40:24] budget.
[40:24] The first of those we already have looked at, and that's local direct county fire
[40:29] marshal staff at City Hall, and the other option is to look at our city provided
[40:35] emergency medical ambulance response. The city has approximately four ambulances that respond
[40:43] to the city, and those are additional services that we have above our basic fire prevention,
[40:50] protection, and rescue services. So I'm going to talk a little about that. So as you see,
[40:56] the fire marshal office, we're recommending, and the city manager has recommended,
[41:04] in the council previously considered
[41:07] eliminating the locally direct
[41:08] fire marshal office at city hall.
[41:10] You can see that those positions
[41:12] we have a deputy fire marshal
[41:13] that's about 52% paid by the city.
[41:17] We also share a fire safety specialist
[41:19] with the city of Indian Wells.
[41:21] We pay the full cost
[41:22] for the two system inspectors of one assistant.
[41:24] So the impact of that,
[41:26] there'll be an offsite plan review.
[41:28] So people that contractors, developers
[41:30] that come here for plan review,
[41:31] we're gonna have to go offsite
[41:32] at a location that could be in the county area,
[41:36] which is near Sun City, or if our two other cities
[41:39] of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells and the Cove
[41:41] decide to bring them in, they could be staffed there.
[41:44] We don't know yet.
[41:45] So we are working with the fire department.
[41:47] We're still waiting for their report
[41:49] to be forthcoming to kind of see what really impacts
[41:53] that we may not have considered would happen
[41:55] without local fire marshal presence at City Hall.
[41:59] And we hope to have a collaboration.
[42:01] We already provided a written 120-day notice to the fire chief.
[42:05] So this will go in effect roughly around late July, early August.
[42:10] And that will save about a cost reduction of about $500,000 from the fire budget.
[42:18] So that's one of the ancillary services that we looked at.
[42:21] The other one, as I noted, is our city-provided ambulances.
[42:25] And this really is a negative solution.
[42:29] There is no positive to this solution.
[42:31] We do not recommend eliminating locally provided emergency medical transport.
[42:37] You know, if we don't do it, then that service is going to be provided by an outside entity.
[42:42] We would have no direct control over service quality or response.
[42:46] Also, our emergency medical services cost recovery program would also terminate
[42:51] and residents would be charged for EMS response transports by whoever the new provider is.
[42:58] This year, that program alone is anticipated to bring approximately two and a half million
[43:02] dollars in cost recovery, and most importantly, we don't bill our residents for that.
[43:07] The program has kept the annual fire service general fund transfer at about two to three
[43:12] million dollars, and for fiscal year 2020-2021, we're recommending the use of fund balance
[43:18] and the fire fund offs at all but about a million dollars of the gap from the total
[43:22] fire service costs and the projected overall fire fund revenues, which I'm going to talk
[43:27] about a little bit, actually the next slide.
[43:30] So the fire revenues that we bring in, they include a couple of things.
[43:35] We have an annual fire tax credit from the county, which is comprised of structural
[43:40] fire taxes and estimated redevelopment pass-through funds.
[43:44] And then back in 1980s, many of you know there's a $60 per dwelling unit fire tax
[43:51] that was approved by the voters back then for upgrading fire prevention and protection services.
[43:56] It's not solely for the ambulance. I know many people think it is, but it's actually for the
[44:01] overall fire prevention and protection for the city. And as we have grown as a city,
[44:07] we've actually outpaced the money that that brings in. So it covers some costs,
[44:12] but it doesn't cover all our costs. We also get a reimbursement from our two co-cities,
[44:18] the Rancher Mirage at Indian Wells for our ladder truck that also offsets the cost of that ladder
[44:22] truck about a million dollars. So initially when I presented this to the Public Safety Commission
[44:30] I had some data that showed that in Station 71's primary response area that engine was responding
[44:37] to three calls about 20% of the time into Rancher Mirage. If I go back here to the map you'll
[44:45] see that right over here this is Monterey Avenue if you can see my pointer and this this is where a lot of those
[45:01] So I felt there was a compelling argument or compelling, you know, reason to have a discussion with the city manager of Rancher Mirage on a possible cost sharing, maybe not a 50-50, but a maybe 20% or one position.
[45:16] That being said, our statistician slash battalion chiefs worked dill and chili last night.
[45:22] Our city manager had contacted the city manager of Rancher Marajan had a brief discussion and kind of ran this proposal by him and
[45:31] What they looked at was you know
[45:34] Initially, I looked at just the primary response area, but we really want to look at the totality. How many times is our
[45:41] engines going into Rancher Marajan vice versa and if you look at that based upon the
[45:46] cooperative regional fire protection program we have. It's really almost a
[45:51] wash. We're talking maybe a one or two percent more but they're coming in just
[45:55] as much as we're going in. So there really isn't a compelling argument to
[45:59] have for any type of really salary sharing at this point. That being said
[46:07] talking to Chief White and Chief Beverly, we do want to keep an eye on the
[46:11] data and kind of see if we do introduce this paramedic squad. What
[46:16] What does that do to the overall responses, you know, collectively amongst the cove cities
[46:21] and see if that shows statistics that reduces their certain call volumes and something that
[46:27] we could have a further discussion on.
[46:28] So we're doors not quite yet closed.
[46:30] It's probably about halfway closed.
[46:32] So we're we're still keeping that open for the future.
[46:36] So this next slide shows what our proposed fiscal year 2021, 2021 of buyer budget is
[46:45] and that's $14.6 million. I do want to say this also includes $200,000 approximately
[46:51] that we have to pay for a federal program that is required as an EMS provider that builds.
[46:59] So we have no option for that. And this kind of shows you how the budget has increased
[47:06] over the last five years. It hasn't been too significant, but it has increased primarily
[47:11] to minimum wage and other factors.
[47:19] So how does this proposal play into our strategic plan?
[47:22] Well, it falls under the public safety and emergency services section of the Pond as a strategic plan,
[47:28] specifically under priority one.
[47:30] And you can read what that priority is.
[47:33] But one of the action steps is to identify public safety needs, including new equipment,
[47:37] which we feel we have with this paramedic squad that it is a need that will fulfill
[47:42] a existing problem we're experiencing at station 71 with the increase call.
[47:50] Now, at the beginning of the presentation, I did note that the Public Safety Commission did review this matter at length.
[47:56] They did recommend approval of the paramedic squad to the City Council.
[48:03] That was by a vote of four approved, one no, and two absent.
[48:09] And
[48:13] this concludes my presentation.
[48:15] I'd like to end by saying we really took a collective approach
[48:18] in developing the public safety budgets, police and fire both
[48:22] and consider them in their totality.
[48:25] The adjustments we have for both of them amounts to approximately
[48:28] $4.4 million with what staff feels is not a negative impact
[48:32] to overall operational efficiency.
[48:34] So we'll be discussing what those police modifications are
[48:38] after this item in further detail.
[48:40] And at this time, staff respectfully recommends
[48:42] that the City Council approved moving forward with having a permanent paramedic squad at Station 71.
[48:47] And the Chiefs and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[48:56] Thank you. That was a very detailed and wonderful report, and I appreciate it very much.
[49:01] Does any – let me start left to right again.
[49:05] Council Member Weber, do you have any questions of staff?
[49:08] Yes, I have a question for clarification.
[49:12] I had a question for clarification from Steven when you said that when we build our new station
[49:20] that we're going to move some of the staff from station 71 over to the new station.
[49:26] Are you saying that when we do that new station, which I understand is east of Cook on Frank
[49:34] Sinatra that you believe that they're going, that station will be relieving 71 of some of
[49:41] the work that they do because I did not see it that way.
[49:45] So to me, when we finally get our new station, it's because we are going to be in great
[49:50] need of a new station and they're going to be very busy from day one.
[49:54] So if you could clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.
[49:57] Sure.
[49:58] Let me go back to that map I was referring to.
[50:08] Okay.
[50:08] Did I lose it?
[50:09] There it goes.
[50:09] So, if you look here where that fourth station would go would be right around this area.
[50:17] So you can see there is, even though there's not as significant as Country Club, there is
[50:22] activity within the North Sphere that that fourth station would alleviate and also reduce
[50:27] the call volume by at station 71.
[50:30] Okay.
[50:31] Thank you.
[50:35] Okay.
[50:36] Mayor Pro Temm, Kathleen Kelly.
[50:37] Any questions?
[50:40] No questions.
[50:42] Okay.
[50:42] Councilmember Hartig. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions. First, I want to thank you very much for including and consulting with the Public Safety Commission.
[50:54] I think that was important. This is a random question. I know where is it the official boundary line that decides where North Palm Desert starts?
[51:08] You know, I believe it is just south of the freeway, but I'll defer to Lori the answer
[51:16] is there.
[51:17] I thought the north on desert is anything north of Fred wearing bride all the way down
[51:24] to the 10 freeway.
[51:26] Yeah.
[51:27] I'm out south of the freeway, not north.
[51:29] I'm sorry.
[51:29] Yeah, there is an app in the packet which shows the jurisdiction, if you will, of each
[51:43] fire station.
[51:45] It looks like this.
[51:47] And I've seen that.
[51:49] I'm just asking where is that official boundary line?
[51:51] Because we so often, even in other things than this, we talk of North Palm Desert,
[51:56] we talk of South Palm Desert.
[51:58] And I'm just wondering, is there, have we determined at some point where there is an
[52:05] official boundary line?
[52:07] It's kind of a big question.
[52:09] It's not just-
[52:09] Well, just to comment on how it overall plays, you know, it's important to, of course, that's
[52:15] important information, but keep in mind how our FHIR program works on a regional collaborative
[52:20] effort.
[52:21] We don't really look at boundaries.
[52:22] We look at overall response bubble, and maybe the chiefs can respond on that a little
[52:26] bit more.
[52:27] No, really, this is an overreaching. I just wanted to know, because we talk in so many
[52:33] subjects, not specific to this, but in so many things, we'll say North Palm Desert.
[52:39] I'm going, is that Fred Wehring, like the mayor said, or is that Country Club? Where
[52:42] exactly is that? So, I don't know if we have the real boundary line to get the Fred
[52:48] Wehring.
[52:48] We typically refer to area north of Frank Sinatra as being North Palm Desert. But
[52:54] different people use different standards. It's also generally used for the
[53:01] undeveloped area, which at this point is typically north of. Probably be good to
[53:06] have something official because we do use that a lot in all different subject
[53:11] matter. I have a question right now. Where does Indian Wells and Rancho
[53:18] Mirage go when they need to review their plans and get them okayed by the
[53:23] fire marshal
[53:27] brian or mike could one of you answer that question
[53:34] yeah good
[53:35] evening mayor council members and staff currently in rancher mirage they paid
[53:39] for a inspector so when the plan review needs to happen in ranch mirage
[53:44] they go to city hall indian wells is dropped off at city hall and part of
[53:50] sonia's position and one of the positions that you paid for is split
[53:53] funded our inspector will go over to indian wells do the plan check and
[53:57] inspection over at their office, and that's how those two are conducted.
[54:05] So Rancho Mirage has their own fire inspector.
[54:10] Yes, ma'am, and then as well as Sonia, because she is the deputy fire marshal for the area,
[54:15] she is split funded amongst the area.
[54:19] So they have 100% dedicated and then a split funded position.
[54:23] You
[54:27] know what, I want to, I am so unclear on that, I want to make sure that I'm clear.
[54:34] We have Sonya, and she's 100% of the time here in Palm Desert?
[54:41] No ma'am, she is split funded between the county, Palm Desert, National Mirage, and
[54:45] the city of Indian Wells.
[54:47] Okay, so she's not, so when we move her, so she moves physically in between different
[54:55] locations?
[54:59] Yes ma'am.
[55:00] Okay.
[55:00] Okay. Thank you for, I didn't want to assume and I appreciate your indulgence.
[55:08] And I think
[55:11] that's all my questions. Thank you.
[55:16] Councilmember Donovan.
[55:18] Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions. So, Steven, at one point you showed us a slide
[55:25] that compared response times, I think it was for station 71 compared to a couple
[55:30] of our other stations. And you may not have this, but in my mind, it's more relevant. How
[55:37] do we compare it to the larger universe, like the state of California, for example? Do you
[55:43] have anything that would compare station 71 response time to the state average?
[56:00] And Stephen,
[56:01] if you're speaking, you are muted so we cannot hear you.
[56:05] Can you hear me now?
[56:06] Yeah.
[56:07] Okay.
[56:07] Sorry.
[56:08] I don't have that information available, maybe either the two chiefs do.
[56:13] I do know as comparatively as I said, it is the busiest station within the county.
[56:18] No, no, no.
[56:18] I'm not asking about how busy it is, but I think we all get how busy it is.
[56:23] The relevant issue is whether response time suffers for the busy.
[56:28] And if so, how much and how do we compare not to a couple of other stations in Palm
[56:32] Desert but to the state. I'm hearing you don't have that. I know but the but the other two
[56:37] fire chiefs may have an answer to that so I defer to them. Yeah councilmember Jonathan.
[56:43] So we don't have the statewide response data because you're comparing apples to oranges. The
[56:50] state is a very large area. Fire stations are not necessarily built geographically the
[56:56] way that your fire stations are built. We are using the county fire department strategic plan
[57:00] and their goal is to put fire stations within four minutes of each other.
[57:06] Previously, you may have seen circles.
[57:08] Before we had all of this technology available to us, we were using circle maps.
[57:14] Now we use GIS response data.
[57:16] It takes into account how many stop signs, how many speed bumps, traffic in the area,
[57:22] and that's how we now develop our response times and where stations should be located.
[57:27] within Riverside County, we have several different areas. So you have urban, heavy,
[57:33] urban, rural, and then outlying. Within each of those areas is kind of a different metric for
[57:39] our response times. The Riverside County Fire Department has chosen a five-minute response
[57:44] time. They feel that at the executive level that that's a good representation of a city fire
[57:50] Department. The national standard of NFPA, which measures like LA, Anaheim, a couple
[57:59] other agencies just to look at, there in that national standard is a four-minute response
[58:04] time. So we have those numbers. I can pull all of Riverside County if you would like
[58:10] or I can look at a city of comparable size. But statewide would be a difficult task
[58:18] and I don't think that the numbers would be representative of what you're looking for.
[58:21] Okay. If we can please get the county-wide data so that we can compare 71 to a larger
[58:29] universe, that would be helpful to me at least.
[58:34] We can do that, Chief?
[58:37] Yes, sir. I'm working on it now.
[58:39] Okay. I mean, no, it doesn't have to be immediate. I mean, if you can't, if you have it handy,
[58:43] fine, but if not, regardless of the outcome of this agenda item, I'd be interested in seeing
[58:47] that. Next question. Steven, you showed a slide that had the hours per day, and it was alarming
[58:56] with only four hours of sleep per day. I'm curious, where did that data come from?
[59:06] That data came from the battalion chiefs they provided it for me. On average.
[59:12] Maybe I didn't ask it properly. I apologize. Is that, you know, a gut sense or do
[59:19] Does the staff keep a time sheet?
[59:23] How are we coming up with that data?
[59:26] Is it scientific? Is it empirical?
[59:28] Yeah, I'll defer to them because they're the ones that provided it,
[59:32] so I don't want to speak on their behalf.
[59:33] So the responding to calls for service we used from our CAD dispatching data.
[59:39] So we were able to see the time from dispatch to the time that the unit
[59:43] went available to the time that they went in quarters.
[59:45] and we calculated that out over a one-year period.
[59:50] Getting fuel is an estimation.
[59:52] Training...
[1:00:00] People work and, well, let's look at the policy, everyone. So training is a policy that
[1:00:05] required to complete two hours a day. We track that via target solutions or an online training
[1:00:10] platform and we look at report cards every month. The state and federally mandated apparatus
[1:00:16] and equipment checkout is an average. The DEA requires our paramedics every morning
[1:00:21] to open up every narcotic. They have to scan them and account for them. The apparatus
[1:00:26] status has a lengthy checklist that needs to be checked every day, so we took an average
[1:00:32] of how long the engineers are taking to check their equipment out in the morning.
[1:00:37] The mandatory physical training, again, is a policy.
[1:00:40] Breakfast, lunch, and dinner, we asked the crews at the fire stations how long do you
[1:00:45] guys basically get, just kind of breaking down the hour of the day.
[1:00:49] And that's where the majority of those numbers came from, sir.
[1:00:51] Okay. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. Steven, I had asked you about the portion of
[1:01:00] calls that go outside of Palm Desert, and you provided that. It's not in a slide,
[1:01:05] but it's in a supplementary document that we received. And if I'm reading it right,
[1:01:13] The calls from station 71 to the city of Palm Desert represent about 3,400 out of 5,000,
[1:01:23] which is about 69%.
[1:01:26] Would you confirm, is that accurate, that 69% of the calls out of station 71 are for
[1:01:32] Palm Desert proper and 31% are for calls outside of our city?
[1:01:36] Am I interpreting that document accurately?
[1:01:39] Brian, could you comment on that?
[1:01:41] You're the statistician that provided it.
[1:01:46] Yes, sir.
[1:01:47] One more.
[1:01:47] Could you repeat your question?
[1:01:49] Yeah.
[1:01:49] We had a chart given to us that indicated it was unit responses for station 71.
[1:01:57] And it indicated that calls for the city of Palm Desert were 3,466 out of a total
[1:02:04] of 5,042, which represents about 69%.
[1:02:09] And I'm asking for confirmation that I'm interpreting that correctly.
[1:02:15] Yes, sir.
[1:02:16] Okay.
[1:02:17] Thank you.
[1:02:18] Final question.
[1:02:20] I'm curious.
[1:02:21] We obviously have not received minutes from the Public Safety Commission in their discussion.
[1:02:27] And Steve and I assume you were there.
[1:02:29] Did they take our budget into consideration?
[1:02:35] The overall city budget that was not discussed.
[1:02:39] Okay.
[1:02:39] Well, I take that back.
[1:02:41] I take that back.
[1:02:42] Actually, our city manager did provide a summary of why we are asking for these reductions,
[1:02:50] which included the various fiscal constraints for now experiencing.
[1:02:56] So that regards, yes.
[1:02:58] All right, sirs.
[1:02:59] I guess what I'm getting at in coming up with their vote, their recommendation in
[1:03:04] their discussion was that a factor other than what the city manager information that
[1:03:10] provided that they have discussion weighing this request against our budget and the projected
[1:03:18] losses?
[1:03:21] I think more of the discussion was on the impacts that the call volume has on public safety
[1:03:29] as well as the staff.
[1:03:30] I expected that.
[1:03:31] My question was, did they weigh those issues against our budget and the projected deficits?
[1:03:36] Let me see if I can address that Councilmember Jonathan. They had extensive discussion on
[1:03:44] the impact of the budget and the requested cuts relative to the next item on your agenda
[1:03:49] to the policing services. There was not an in-depth discussion of budget and the impact
[1:03:56] of the pandemic on the budget for this item.
[1:04:01] Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Mayor.
[1:04:04] Mayor, I have one more question, if I may, and it's a little bit of a tangent.
[1:04:10] But you talked, Stephen, about the 1980 voter-approved initiative that puts $60 on the tax roll.
[1:04:21] And this may just be something that I just have to ask.
[1:04:26] Was there any language in there that provided for any automatic increases, or was that
[1:04:31] just saying it's $60 and that's it. Well it started actually out at $48 and there
[1:04:37] was a one it could go up to $60 without further voter approval so back about 2009
[1:04:44] is when we raised it for the only time from 48 to 60 so we're at our maximum
[1:04:50] amount now. Okay so we did have that the language included a cap. Yes when I
[1:04:55] recall and if we were to raise that we'd have to go back out for a vote.
[1:05:00] Okay, so you say as you recall, is there any possibility?
[1:05:04] No, no, it is.
[1:05:04] It is.
[1:05:05] Okay.
[1:05:05] Yeah.
[1:05:06] Okay.
[1:05:06] Thank you.
[1:05:08] Okay.
[1:05:09] With that, I just had another clarification.
[1:05:14] Stephen, as Council Member Donovan pointed out, a lot of discussion wasn't done around
[1:05:19] budgeting.
[1:05:20] It was done merely around the fact that the members at Station 71 seem to be putting
[1:05:27] in an awful lot of hours and this would alleviate some of that plus helping the, you know, the
[1:05:34] reply time to those particular calls.
[1:05:37] But one of the things I'd like you to clarify for us is that it was pointed out that with
[1:05:42] the addition of new people, we need more recliners and we need a bigger dinner table.
[1:05:50] And I was wondering how are we going to be paying for that?
[1:05:53] Is that going to come along down the road?
[1:05:56] do we need more beds for the additional staff members as well? And also it was mentioned
[1:06:01] that we're going to have to remodel the station a tiny bit. And did we address the cost of
[1:06:06] that? Those items have not yet been looked at. There's been some type of discussion.
[1:06:14] Brian, you did look at possibly reconfiguring some of the space there. Was that correct?
[1:06:22] Yes, sir, that's correct. We did have for a period of, it was over six months where
[1:06:27] the Indian Wells Fire Station was going through their earthquake retrofit and upgrade, and
[1:06:32] we moved the ambulance over there, and it was the same staffing configuration, so two
[1:06:36] additional people. It is tight. We know that we can do it. There are some recommendations
[1:06:43] to, again, the recliners in the tables that I think that we can cover and the
[1:06:47] start-up cost that is in the table that's already provided without going into a major
[1:06:53] remodel, knowing the constraints that the budgets are currently under because of the pandemic.
[1:06:59] Okay, I would like to say thank you again as Council Member Harnick said. We do
[1:07:04] thank the Commission for coming together so quickly to do a Zoom meeting on this,
[1:07:09] and we were there until what, six o'clock last night working on this, so they took
[1:07:14] very seriously they took a responsibility very seriously and as you'll hear when we get to
[1:07:19] the next section on the police they had done all their homework and they asked a lot of questions
[1:07:24] and so we appreciated this suggestion because this has come up you know in the past a little bit
[1:07:29] about how else we can operate this station to be a little bit more effective so I appreciate that
[1:07:35] they've come up with this solution and if the mayor is ready for us to make a motion I'll go
[1:07:44] there is any other discussion please make a motion okay councilmember Jonathan oh I'm sorry you said
[1:07:52] discussion I think I just want to make sure we have an opportunity for discussion following the
[1:07:56] motion that's what I do second the motion and then we can have discussion all right
[1:08:06] okay are we
[1:08:08] going to take a roll call and then discuss no
[1:08:15] need to discuss now there can be a discussion
[1:08:21] after. Okay, so City Clerk, if you would please take a roll call. Can someone clarify the
[1:08:28] motion? Sorry, Mayor, we should have discussion among the council members before the vote
[1:08:33] is taken.
[1:08:36] That's what I was just saying. Does anybody want to discuss the matter? Yes.
[1:08:41] Yes, Council Member Jonathan.
[1:08:45] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:08:48] Look, I'm not sure that too many people
[1:08:51] People would disagree that this is something that would better serve the residents of Palm
[1:08:59] Desert and accomplish other benefits.
[1:09:07] In my mind, this couldn't happen at a worse time.
[1:09:11] We're in this pandemic, we're in this economic crisis, and the depth of that pain is not
[1:09:17] yet known.
[1:09:20] We are looking at deficits in the 15-month period that will hover around $15 million.
[1:09:29] We have a $60 million budget. We're working so hard to cut costs, and here we're being asked to spend $1.2 million.
[1:09:36] And not only that, but we're asking to commit to an additional expense of $1 million per year.
[1:09:44] That's the staffing and maintenance cost once we get that truck in there.
[1:09:50] I am persuaded that we need this, but not right at this time.
[1:09:55] And I would like to suggest for your consideration that we not say no, but that we instead table
[1:10:03] this matter for six months, let's find out whether literally we can afford to do this.
[1:10:10] we want to do this, but just like in our personal budgets, when we want something,
[1:10:15] even when we can justify it, it doesn't mean we can afford it. And I'm not sure that we can afford
[1:10:20] this at this time. So my suggestion would be not to say no, but to say let's table this for
[1:10:26] six months and have a second look when we understand what the financial impact of this
[1:10:32] pandemic is on our city and our city's budget. I agree with you on that. And if you'd like,
[1:10:39] I'd be happy to pull my motion for you to make another motion for it to be revisited
[1:10:44] in six months because, as you said, it's not a matter of do we need this.
[1:10:48] Clearly we have those two new buildings opening up south of 71 station right there.
[1:10:57] They're ready to open up.
[1:10:58] That's a lot of human beings plus all the other places that we are opening.
[1:11:03] So it's almost a matter of we have to do this.
[1:11:06] And I agree with you to hold off for six months might be much more prudent than saying start tomorrow.
[1:11:14] But I'm honestly thinking we really can't avoid doing it down the road.
[1:11:20] It just seems an impossible thing. We've just got a lot of need for that additional unit.
[1:11:26] So if you like, I'm happy to pull my motion if that's possible.
[1:11:30] Why don't we finish discussion and then hedge up what the motion should be.
[1:11:40] I guess I define need differently than my two colleagues who have just spoken because to
[1:11:52] my way of thinking once we acknowledge that something is
[1:11:57] a need that means it's priority.
[1:12:02] And I am positive that the people who elected us
[1:12:08] would wish for ambulance response time
[1:12:13] to receive the highest possible priority.
[1:12:17] The benefit of deciding tonight is that then the budget can be structured with this in mind.
[1:12:29] Putting it off for six months means that the budget is built without it and it becomes dependent on some windfall income.
[1:12:41] Ambulance response time should not be subject to windfall income, period.
[1:12:53] So I support taking action tonight.
[1:12:59] I think that would be the will of our residents.
[1:13:05] It's a very well thought out proposal.
[1:13:09] but you understand this is not an ambulance yes I do councilmember
[1:13:16] Harnick thank
[1:13:20] you mayor I
[1:13:23] I understand you know we're in a tough budget time
[1:13:27] there's no one who doesn't understand I'm pretty sure of that and whether it's the
[1:13:33] worst time ever let's hope this is the worst time this could ever happen but
[1:13:38] But the fact is to put people's safety and their health, secondary to money, doesn't
[1:13:48] to me align with the values of Palm Desert.
[1:13:53] The density that is in the area that Station 71 serves is the result and the product of
[1:14:04] zoning and land planning.
[1:14:09] And we have a well-thought-out, I believe, it's a well-thought-out presentation.
[1:14:16] Does it come at the best time? No, but things like this don't come at the best time. It's just
[1:14:22] the way it goes. And I remember when I was first on council and we had a discussion at one of
[1:14:29] the conferences I went to and they said when you feel like continuing an item on an agenda,
[1:14:38] it's always better to act on it. It sends bad messages when you continue quite often
[1:14:45] and we want to reassure our community. And so what you should do rather than continue
[1:14:52] value.
[1:15:00] Anyway, what are your values as a community? Remember what your values are as a community.
[1:15:08] And certainly, one of our values is our public safety in Palm Desert. And looking at that
[1:15:16] makes me believe so strongly that this is the time to act, not wait. We don't know what
[1:15:22] tomorrow is going to bring. We really don't. And the reason we have the community we
[1:15:29] do is because of those services we provide and government shouldn't be involved in everything
[1:15:35] and government has a short list of things it must do and one of those things is provide for its
[1:15:41] public safety of the community members. So I absolutely believe that this is the time to act.
[1:15:48] I don't believe that we should kick this down the road.
[1:15:51] And Council Member Harnick, you make great points that it's because of the planning and
[1:15:56] zoning, we find ourselves in this predicament. And so we can't go back in time and undo it,
[1:16:04] can't unring the bell, to say. And, you know, I've come full circle. I've looked at the reports
[1:16:10] and, I mean, our fire department is working on, I mean, just doing an amazing job,
[1:16:17] almost an impossible job with, you know, sometimes only four hours of sleep.
[1:16:21] And so I concur that while it's tough to make budget cuts, I believe we've got to look somewhere else.
[1:16:33] Are there any other? Okay, Councilor McJonathan.
[1:16:36] Yeah, I just want to clarify my comments based on the comments of my colleagues.
[1:16:39] And I understand that, you know, the direction this is probably going in.
[1:16:43] And I think like any good council member who's on the losing end of the vote,
[1:16:48] I will support publicly and otherwise the will of the majority but I want to clarify my concerns.
[1:16:57] You know the word need is not an absolute in some cases you know I might need a new refrigerator
[1:17:05] but it can wait a few months and so once we've identified a need it doesn't mean that we have
[1:17:10] to have a knee jerk reaction and get it right away. You know the concept of putting safety
[1:17:17] over dollars is a rather absurd mischaracterization. I think one of the greatest obligations that
[1:17:26] we have as council members is the fiscal oversight that we exercise, because frankly, when a
[1:17:33] city runs out of money, then it runs out of choices. And if you think our residents
[1:17:38] are in bad shape because of a slightly reduced response time for six months, wait until
[1:17:44] we don't have money to, you know, pave the roads, run the sprinklers at the parks and
[1:17:48] so forth. And it was said by several of you, we don't know what's coming up. We don't
[1:17:53] know how deep this recession is going to go. We don't know how long our TOT revenue and
[1:17:58] sales tax revenue will be in decline. So I'm just saying, while I absolutely agree
[1:18:04] with the comments made that this is something that we need, I don't think it's causing
[1:18:11] a lot of injury to table it for six months simply to make sure that we can afford it.
[1:18:17] Thank you.
[1:18:19] Thank you.
[1:18:20] Thank you.
[1:18:20] Council Member Jonathan.
[1:18:22] All right.
[1:18:23] So, Councilor Mejaniq.
[1:18:25] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:18:27] And I so appreciate your comments, Council Member Jonathan.
[1:18:31] There's a couple of things I'd like us to look at because I take this so seriously
[1:18:35] and I think my comments show that clearly.
[1:18:38] I would like us, though, because we have stated a couple times about these short-term nursing
[1:18:48] centers and the residential type of facilities for short-term or for independent care and
[1:18:56] those sorts of things.
[1:18:57] We do need to go back and look at how do we recoup some of those funds?
[1:19:02] Are there better guidelines that could be put in place?
[1:19:04] in the city's interest, in the city's general interest in community members, members' interest
[1:19:11] rather than a perhaps someone's business model. So I do want us to go back and look at those.
[1:19:17] And I do want the, our fire professionals to continue, statisticians as they are,
[1:19:24] to continue working with us to help us find ways to cut this budget. And as we go forward,
[1:19:30] because we're going to need their help to do that. But on that, I would like to make the motion
[1:19:35] that we accept the staff's recommendation. I have a second. Fairness Sandy. The recommendation
[1:19:44] is to provide direction to staff on the staffing and purchase. So I need a formal motion to be
[1:19:52] made. Didn't we already have a motion in a second on the table? We did. We actually made the motion
[1:20:03] and so Council Member Hartley has seconded it. I'm substituting. Well it's the same motion. That's
[1:20:13] right. Okay can someone restate the motion please.
[1:20:21] Council Member Weber it's your motion. Well the
[1:20:24] The motion was to agree with consideration to staff and purchase a paramedic squad at
[1:20:29] fire station number 71 as part of the fire department's fiscal year 2021 budget request.
[1:20:36] So this will, by us making this motion, my understanding is that then we will be discussing
[1:20:41] this during our budget session.
[1:20:43] Is that correct?
[1:20:49] I would ask city manager.
[1:20:51] What we were asking, what Steph was asking for was direction as to what to include
[1:20:56] in the budget.
[1:20:56] We've already discussed this in the budget study session.
[1:21:00] Our next study session is going to be on different things in the budget.
[1:21:03] We're looking at everything that was spelled out in this document.
[1:21:07] We are trying to nail down what we're trying to nail down more to include in the budget.
[1:21:13] So that we can discuss it at budget, right?
[1:21:16] No, this is going to include it now in the budget.
[1:21:19] Our next budget study session is discussing other issues.
[1:21:22] We've
[1:21:26] pretty well discussed this, so staff, staff needs to know what to put in the budget,
[1:21:33] which will ultimately come back to us at council meeting, but I'd say this one's been talked
[1:21:40] out.
[1:21:41] So, is this Fire Apparatus, Engineer, Firefighter II paramedic, paramedic squad vehicle, service
[1:21:47] and delivery costs and for inclusion and then are we also accepting the reductions or is
[1:21:57] that a separate issue?
[1:21:58] No, that's a good point.
[1:21:59] I'm not seeing an actual, an amount in writing, it just says let's do this, let's do that
[1:22:06] and so forth.
[1:22:07] Here's what this is going to cost.
[1:22:08] So Stephen, do you want to give me some direction and where I would locate an exact
[1:22:12] amount?
[1:22:15] Because if we're saying that this is the amount we're going to put in a budget, I thought
[1:22:19] we were just moving this over to discuss it in a budget with a dollar amount.
[1:22:24] Yeah.
[1:22:25] The anticipated dollar amount is listed under fiscal analysis and it's 1 million, about
[1:22:32] 1.2 million.
[1:22:34] That's 1.192,600.
[1:22:39] Yes.
[1:22:39] Yes.
[1:22:40] And recurring costs of $957,600.
[1:22:45] That would be for the following fiscal year, yes.
[1:22:49] Right.
[1:22:49] But, I mean, by adding this unit, obviously, we're not going to take it away the next year.
[1:22:55] So as long as we have the unit, we're adding these incremental costs, recurring costs,
[1:23:01] of about a million dollars a year.
[1:23:03] Correct.
[1:23:04] And if I could ask a question of Chief White, Chief White, are these at the
[1:23:08] top step as well, as what you have under the Schedule A that you provide us?
[1:23:13] Yes, sir. Those are the top step numbers. Okay. So it'll be, should be lower than that,
[1:23:19] but it should not exceed that.
[1:23:24] Oh, thank you, Stephen. I'm sorry. These
[1:23:25] are different papers than I was looking at before. So, yes. So then the motion would
[1:23:31] say the million 192, 600.
[1:23:36] And to Councilmember Jonathan's comment that we're not going
[1:23:40] get rid of it next year. We might.
[1:23:49] So we have a motion in a second. Let's do a roll call vote.
[1:23:52] Councilmember Hartick. Yes.
[1:23:57] Councilman Jonathan. No.
[1:24:02] Mayor Patem Kelly.
[1:24:06] Councilmember Weber.
[1:24:08] Yes. Mayor Nisdandy. Yes. Motion carries for zero with Councilman Jonathan Bodino.
[1:24:27] Let me get
[1:24:27] my place again.
[1:24:31] Okay, so moving on consideration of cost reduction options for the fiscal year
[1:24:38] 2020-2021 come desert police department budget. Is there a staff report?
[1:24:47] Yes, there is. Is Lieutenant Martello here? I know there's he's going to answer a lot of
[1:24:51] questions too. Yes, I see him here. I'm going to. Hello, uh, Honorable Mayor and
[1:24:57] Council members, Steve Arion again, your risk manager.
[1:25:00] I am going to also do a PowerPoint.
[1:25:02] It's not going to be as lengthy,
[1:25:04] but I do want to go over some of the finer details
[1:25:07] of what we're proposing.
[1:25:09] Stephen, please stay close to your microphone.
[1:25:14] I am literally, I think, eating my microphone
[1:25:17] at this point, but I will definitely do that.
[1:25:20] And please speak up if you cannot hear me.
[1:25:23] You're perfect now, Stephen.
[1:25:25] Okay.
[1:25:30] Okay. Does everyone see the PowerPoint now?
[1:25:37] Does everyone see that up? Is it? Okay.
[1:25:40] You're not a yes. Yes. Okay. Before I begin, I would also like to just give some brief
[1:25:48] comments and I would like to acknowledge that Captain Belay and Lieutenant Martello
[1:25:55] were a really integral part of this budget proposal. We worked very closely and in
[1:26:02] collaboration with them in developing these considerations before you
[1:26:07] tonight. And we look at the different behavioral changes we're seeing in the
[1:26:14] public now. We're not seeing as much traffic currently. Our bars and retail
[1:26:20] operations are seeing obviously reduced traffic with the stay-at-home order
[1:26:24] and which would more likely coincide for many months thereafter. And we
[1:26:30] recognize that some of these changes will have a lasting impact on us. And I do want
[1:26:35] to stress that it's very important that these are potentially temporary actions that we're
[1:26:43] looking at addressing current issues now. We're going to constantly evaluate conditions
[1:26:47] to see if a change is warranted. We're going to look at our data, see if we need to bring
[1:26:52] back some of these positions we're considering temporarily suspending, or do any other different
[1:26:59] course of action for the Council's consideration. And just like the previous item, this also was
[1:27:04] reviewed and discussed by the Public Safety Commission at their virtual Zoom meeting yesterday,
[1:27:09] which I'll get to later on in the meeting.
[1:27:16] So I want to go over the different cost saving
[1:27:18] considerations. And at the very top of the list, it's our patrol hours. We're currently
[1:27:23] operating at 171.4 hours per day of patrol, and we're proposing downshifting that to about
[1:27:30] 144 hours a day, excuse me, which is a 16% reduction and we're still going to maintain
[1:27:37] operational efficiency and we're going to do that by increasing our community service
[1:27:41] officer two positions and that will come in later on.
[1:27:45] I'm going to explain how many more positions need for that, but these CSO twos or community
[1:27:50] service officer twos will be able to assist us in patrol by doing certain functions
[1:27:55] such as prisoner transport, doing traffic reports, taking other certain reports,
[1:28:03] where a sworn armed deputy presence is not necessary. And by also reducing the patrol
[1:28:10] hours, it allows us to maintain other critical positions, ones that Lieutenant Martello and
[1:28:16] Captain Belay have indicated are critical for our operational effectiveness, which are our
[1:28:21] special teams, which consists of various functions such as our special enforcement team, our
[1:28:28] business sister team or our motors, those would still continue by having this reduction
[1:28:34] without a negative detriment to overall operational efficiency.
[1:28:40] The next thing we're proposing is also a suspension of our administrative sergeant
[1:28:45] position.
[1:28:45] Now, the duties that normally go with the sergeant would be spread out.
[1:28:51] About 25% of those responsibilities would go to the motor sergeant.
[1:28:56] And Lieutenant Martello, or our dedicated lieutenant, can also assist in those functions.
[1:29:02] The motor teams were currently at six motor officers, and were proposing to go down
[1:29:08] to two.
[1:29:09] There was a previous recommendation by the city manager to go down to five, and
[1:29:15] down one more to a total of four motor officers from six. That cost per position is about $360,000,
[1:29:24] which brings that cost reduction savings to $721,000 approximately.
[1:29:31] Another previous recommendation by the city manager was the suspension of the K-9 team.
[1:29:37] We looked at different statistics for the last year from April through May,
[1:29:43] excuse me, from May through April of 2019 to April of 2020. And based on that, there was 48
[1:29:50] significant incidents and arrests.
[1:30:00] In, it says in Palm Desert, but actually total. And out of those, there was seven in Palm Desert.
[1:30:09] The other 48 were divided between the county as well as other cities. So we feel that the
[1:30:17] department, the Palm Desert Police Department can still utilize the county K-19 and we
[1:30:22] just won't have a dedicated position. Now, there's also a public relations component
[1:30:27] to this as well that when we had originally our own canine team that was part of the reason
[1:30:35] to is to have this PR opportunity to go out to the community specifically schools, homeowners
[1:30:41] associations and other such groups to present I guess lack of a better word an ambassador
[1:30:47] for the police department. Roughly my understanding is this position
[1:30:52] goes to about three PR events, public events per month, so that also would be a consideration
[1:30:59] that would not occur with the county kingine.
[1:31:06] In our business district team, we're currently at
[1:31:09] four positions and we feel we can be effective at three given current conditions. You know,
[1:31:15] these are extraordinary times. So we still feel they're effective at this staffing and that's
[1:31:20] $356,000 reduction.
[1:31:24] The next issue is our school resource officer, our SRO position.
[1:31:28] The city currently has two.
[1:31:30] One is assigned to Palm Desert High School and Desert Sands Unified School District
[1:31:36] does a cost-sharing agreement with the city and pays for 50% of that position.
[1:31:42] The other position is 100% dedicated to the Palm Desert Charter Middle School.
[1:31:47] There is currently no cost sharing at that middle school as there is with the high school staff and city manager has attempted pretty much every year to get some type of cost sharing agreement down even if it's incremental and we have not met much success.
[1:32:02] They have their own governing board separate from the school district so it's not just as easy as going to the district like we did with the high school.
[1:32:10] We would have to approach their governing board.
[1:32:12] who oversees their operations.
[1:32:15] And lastly, we're looking at not reducing, but increasing,
[1:32:21] our community service officers to help with that offset in patrol.
[1:32:27] And by having an additional three CSOs,
[1:32:30] we feel that will result in a more of a positive impact
[1:32:35] to that reduction in patrol to maintain that operational efficiency.
[1:32:39] So this also matches, if you recall, we are working closely with the Sheriff's New Research and Development Unit.
[1:32:47] And they have a similar proposal for where you restructure your patrol, maybe have less patrol, but increase your CSOs, the kind of complexity for that.
[1:32:59] And as you can see, CSOs are a little more cost-effective solution for those non-sworn, non-arm situations where you need a deputy.
[1:33:08] And a CSO position is about 130,000 per position.
[1:33:13] So roughly three CSOs will make up the same cost as one patrol deputy.
[1:33:23] And this over here gives you an idea of what the reduction summary and savings are overall.
[1:33:30] You can see we have everything proposed here.
[1:33:33] So once you look at all the temporary suspensions and the increases in CSO,
[1:33:39] you're looking at a budget reduction of approximately $3.4 million.
[1:33:48] And this shows you our proposed fiscal year 2021 budget.
[1:33:53] I do want to say that originally, when we looked at this,
[1:33:58] and before we had any of these considerations,
[1:34:01] staff was going to bring forward for consideration
[1:34:03] a budget of approximately $23.2 million.
[1:34:07] And we were able to work collaboratively
[1:34:10] to reduce that down to 19.5, which is the budget that you're considering today with these reductions.
[1:34:20] And this is basically the budget seat that I work on every year.
[1:34:23] It gives you kind of an overall understanding of where our costs are derived from.
[1:34:29] And I'll just break it down real briefly for you.
[1:34:31] That top line, line item number one, that's your general law enforcement patrol.
[1:34:35] That accounts for a little over half of your budget.
[1:34:38] That's the basic level of police services that we need to have as a city.
[1:34:45] The other remaining items between 2 and Light Item 2 and Light Item 16, those compose our
[1:34:49] special team positions.
[1:34:51] These are the positions that the captain and the lieutenant have indicated are critical
[1:34:56] for them to maintain the same level of operational efficiency and public safety that our city
[1:35:02] has come to expect.
[1:35:03] In fact, those positions comprise about 38% of our total budget.
[1:35:09] The last items between item line item 19 and 33 are just our basic support costs, and those are 8% and include but are not limited to overtime facility fees we pay any type of mileage costs maintenance costs for our motor units, etc.
[1:35:28] So strategic plan. So again, this matter is related to the same strategic plan as the previous item.
[1:35:33] And that's priority one where we enhance the delivery of public safety services.
[1:35:39] And that's priority strategy is to expand the existing, the perlative services provided by the fire and police departments to address future growth and safety concerns, which we feel this budget adequately does.
[1:35:54] And as noted, the Public Safety Commission did take a good look at this.
[1:35:58] They did move forward with all of staff's recommendations as presented before you tonight.
[1:36:03] The vote was three ayes, one no, and we did have a commissioner that had to leave before
[1:36:10] the final vote, so that's why you see instead of two absences like the previous one you
[1:36:14] got three, but it still was a majority in favor of that.
[1:36:22] And in closing, I want to say again that staff took a collaborative approach in developing
[1:36:28] these public safety budgets and consider them in their totality.
[1:36:31] money.
[1:36:32] The both police and fire represent a significant percentage of our general fund expenditures
[1:36:37] and as public safety costs continue to increase, we're going to remain diligent in reviewing
[1:36:41] and monitoring of these expenditures and revenues, the budget process, and through
[1:36:45] quartered reporting and looking at the data with the public safety commission.
[1:36:49] So we feel the recommended budget supports the policy goal of the general plan to work
[1:36:54] with all available resources and ensuring continued excellent and cost-effectively
[1:36:58] services in Palm Desert.
[1:37:00] I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, and so would Lieutenant Martello, who's joining
[1:37:05] us today virtually.
[1:37:07] Thank you.
[1:37:08] Thank you, Mr. Ariane, for that very, again, detailed report and appreciate all the hard
[1:37:14] work that has gone into it.
[1:37:15] And I want to thank also Lieutenant Martello for his service to our community.
[1:37:19] And with that, I will now ask to see if there's any questions of staff, and I'll
[1:37:26] start with Councilmember Jonathan this time.
[1:37:28] Okay,
[1:37:31] Council Member Hardik.
[1:37:36] Thank you.
[1:37:36] I do have one question.
[1:37:38] And, you know, I wanted to thank Council Member Weber for representing us on the Public Service
[1:37:44] Commission.
[1:37:45] I'm happy that you made that effort and we got them all together.
[1:37:49] I'm sure your presence is really an asset.
[1:37:53] I do have one question.
[1:37:56] Would you do me a favor and I just kind of missed it.
[1:37:59] Can you review the motor position issue? And then during our conversation, would you be so kind
[1:38:06] as to bring up the slide that shows all the costs and all the savings?
[1:38:25] Okay, that's the slide. But
[1:38:26] then would you review, I mean, it was like we had six motors and then there were two and then there's
[1:38:31] five and I got confused. No, I'm sorry. We're basically going from six motor positions down
[1:38:36] to four motor positions with the budget proposal before you today.
[1:38:44] Okay. And I understand
[1:38:46] And that's the budget proposal today but here's why I got a little confused and I'm just asking you to, I just want to make sure I have it straight.
[1:38:56] That you talked about it went to five and then the city managers said, I lost that. So if you could just go over the whole thing on the motors, I would just, I'd really appreciate it.
[1:39:08] Okay, originally, we started at six motors.
[1:39:12] Sometime, I want to say in March, the city manager came with a proposal to initially to address the budget issues we had this year to reduce the motor team by one position and also to suspend the K-9 team.
[1:39:30] That's where that five came from.
[1:39:32] And after reviewing it with Lieutenant Martello and the Captain Deli, we're coming at another
[1:39:40] reduction down to four.
[1:39:42] Okay.
[1:39:43] I'm clear now.
[1:39:44] Thank you.
[1:39:51] And then, could we?
[1:39:52] Okay.
[1:39:53] Let me unmute myself.
[1:39:54] All right.
[1:39:55] Any other questions?
[1:39:58] Councilmember or actually Mayor Pro Tem Kaplan-Kelley?
[1:40:03] No questions.
[1:40:04] I do want to thank Lieutenant Martello and others in the department who worked so thoughtfully
[1:40:16] to bring us these proposals.
[1:40:20] Thank you for those comments.
[1:40:22] And then, Councilmember Weber?
[1:40:24] Yes, again, we want to say thank you very much for the commission for working so diligently
[1:40:29] on this.
[1:40:30] And the questions they asked, as you might imagine, it brought a lot of consternation
[1:40:35] to all of us to suspend the Palm Desert Charter Middle School officer, but apparently this
[1:40:43] has been discussed year after year and they have chosen to say no, they didn't care to
[1:40:47] help support that.
[1:40:48] So when push comes to shove, I guess that's one of the things we had to write off.
[1:40:53] Also one of the commissioners was very vocal on the reduction in patrol hours.
[1:40:59] he felt that instead of decreasing the patrol hours 244 that we should actually increase it,
[1:41:06] increase the patrol hours. So we discussed that at great length and the advantage of having the
[1:41:14] CSOs, which would then free up the patrol officers to actually utilize their 144 hours
[1:41:21] in a more proficient manner. That seemed to be the final solution. Like I said, they
[1:41:28] They spent a lot of time and we really appreciate that they did this and we're really lucky
[1:41:35] to have these commissioners because they have all sorts of broad experiences that they bring
[1:41:39] into the discussion. So, it was a lively discussion with all kinds of things being discussed.
[1:41:46] And then also, it's my understanding and I asked this yesterday is that if, of course,
[1:41:52] Because we all of a sudden have an urgent need, something going on, officers can be brought
[1:41:59] from other areas to assist the officers we have.
[1:42:03] We might get a bill for it, but it's not like we're locked into we only have this many officers.
[1:42:09] We have a contract that allows us to expand if we have a necessity for additional officers.
[1:42:16] And I think that's something that we need to keep in mind when we vote for this.
[1:42:21] And that's the only comment I had to make, but if you're ready for a motion, I'm happy
[1:42:26] to make a motion to accept the...
[1:42:29] Well, I didn't know we were on comments.
[1:42:31] Yeah, let's see if there's any discussion from our council members.
[1:42:35] And it sounds like Council Member Harnick, you have a few points to make?
[1:42:38] Well, I'd like to share a few things.
[1:42:42] And I want to remind everybody and maybe tell us, give some information that some
[1:42:48] of you may not have.
[1:42:49] And it sounds like, before I give you this information, just let me say this, it sounds
[1:42:53] like Lieutenant Martello and Captain Bell, I have come up with solutions for the issue
[1:43:01] with the canine team.
[1:43:03] But I do want to remind that years ago, when we lost band snap, the then city manager's
[1:43:11] solution was not to have a canine.
[1:43:14] And it was not met with community support.
[1:43:17] to the point that one of our community members gave $10,000 to buy real and
[1:43:24] then gave $5,000 to buy real of vest. This is one of our Palm Desert community
[1:43:29] members. So I want you to have that information. You may need it along the
[1:43:34] way but it does sound and I do believe that our canine is a great public
[1:43:40] relations resource for us but it does sound as if our police have come up
[1:43:46] with a solution that will work, although not in a PR fashion, which I do think there is
[1:43:52] a lot of value there.
[1:43:55] The other thing I wanted to mention is the SRO at Palm Desert Charter Middle.
[1:44:05] I'm just going to – this is something else that maybe I'm giving new information.
[1:44:11] Maybe I'm reminding you of this.
[1:44:12] But the principle, at the time we had an initiative that we put on the ballot that to raise our
[1:44:20] TOT because we wanted to make sure with that TOT that we could pay for our public safety.
[1:44:30] And she was first to sign on and to put her name to this initiative.
[1:44:35] Now, I understand we could all say, but TOT is down.
[1:44:38] We're not getting that.
[1:44:39] that, we're not appreciating that increase right now, and I understand that.
[1:44:45] But I do want you to understand that she was a big supporter and helped us get that measure
[1:44:52] You're across.
[1:45:00] The board because she recognized how important public safety is and how important the school
[1:45:05] resource officer is. I would propose that additionally the school resource officer at 158 is not
[1:45:13] one of our greatest expenses that we are reducing, but it's really important for our students
[1:45:20] and for their future to have a good relationship with our public safety, with our sheriffs,
[1:45:25] And it gives them, I think, a really positive relationship.
[1:45:32] I think it's really important and hopefully it keeps them going in the right direction.
[1:45:38] I would, if the council is adamant to just do away with that SRO, before that happens
[1:45:48] I would hope that we could talk to the principal and see if maybe at this point,
[1:45:52] maybe there is some cost sharing we could do. And we know that everybody's been hit hard.
[1:45:57] But that's a tough issue. And I think it's so important that we have our youth going in the
[1:46:03] right direction. And I really think our police help point them in a positive direction.
[1:46:10] So those are my comments.
[1:46:15] I hate to see any of this gone. I really think one of our values
[1:46:18] as a community is public safety. And I can see there's been a lot of work done in that.
[1:46:23] I'd like to, if I may, have a better understanding, and I guess this is a Lieutenant Martello question,
[1:46:31] a better understanding of what the administrative sergeant does.
[1:46:35] I don't understand what that person does, and I'm not sure if my colleagues do either,
[1:46:40] but I'd like to understand that. And those are, I guess that should have been a question
[1:46:45] earlier but those are my comments and the question. Okay. Can you guys hear me?
[1:46:53] Yes. Okay.
[1:46:56] It's Lieutenant Martello. Hello, everyone. The answer your question regarding the administrative
[1:47:00] sergeant position. The position is a position that we have here at the station that we
[1:47:07] utilize for most of our reports that are stimulated from patrol and from our special
[1:47:12] teams. He's also a position where he can be used in other areas. For example, when our
[1:47:19] set teams go out for search warranties like that, he's an additional buyer that we can
[1:47:23] use to lead a team because he's a supervisor. He also can help with our traffic team when
[1:47:29] necessary. But most importantly, he assists in all administrative responsibilities for
[1:47:38] the station and for the police department and he assists me with a lot of different things as well.
[1:47:47] You've seen him at our meetings quite frequently and he's able to assist with budget stuff and
[1:47:54] also other areas of responsibility that we need in the field.
[1:48:03] That's a lot. Okay, thank you for
[1:48:05] Thank you for answering that question. Okay. Any other council members? Council member Jonathan.
[1:48:14] Thank you. I'll try to be brief. I too want to express my appreciation to Stephen and to Captain
[1:48:21] Belli and to Lieutenant Martello. This is so huge. You are providing us with solutions. You
[1:48:30] understand the pressure that we're under and you have helped us craft a way that addresses
[1:48:36] our fiscal emergency while at the same time preserving what is perhaps our highest priority
[1:48:42] and that's public safety.
[1:48:44] So thank you so much for that.
[1:48:46] You know, I wish we could have had that kind of success on the fireside, but you know,
[1:48:51] that's a whole different story.
[1:48:53] Yeah, you know, I mean, I completely support this and if Council Member Webber is prepared
[1:48:59] to make the motion. I'll happily second it. You know, we've been having the discussion
[1:49:05] with PDMS since my first year on council and reached out to them and have gotten less than
[1:49:12] the satisfactory response on those occasions when we've even received a response. So maybe
[1:49:17] this will get their attention. And my hope is that we can store our financial well-being
[1:49:22] at some point and have that conversation with them. So what we're doing for this
[1:49:27] coming year is not a forever thing and we're doing the things that we need to do to get
[1:49:33] by and I'm sure that they will as well.
[1:49:35] And then I look forward to the day when we can restart that conversation.
[1:49:41] Yeah, with regards to Rio, I think, you know, I mean, he tugs at everybody's heartstrings
[1:49:47] and I get it, you know, and kind of having the separate emotions from financial decisions
[1:49:53] sometimes takes a level of responsibility that I don't have.
[1:49:57] So that's a tough one for me.
[1:49:59] Those two, I couldn't find them.
[1:50:01] I was ready to answer.
[1:50:03] I had a whole, I got...
[1:50:05] Oops.
[1:50:07] Okay, so...
[1:50:08] Lieutenant Martello, you're not muted.
[1:50:11] Now he is.
[1:50:12] Thank you, Jane.
[1:50:14] So, you know, what's relevant to me is that only 14%
[1:50:21] of the incidents that Rio was involved in are in our city
[1:50:25] And we're paying for 100% of that and the 86% were kind of providing free.
[1:50:31] And I don't think that 86% of 300-some thousand is justified right now for public relations.
[1:50:40] Again, I hope to see the day when we can resume that.
[1:50:43] The good news is that it's not having a K-9 unit or not.
[1:50:48] We'll still have one and we'll just tap into the county's K-9 unit.
[1:50:52] it, and hopefully part of that will include public relations because I agree with you,
[1:50:57] Council Member Harnick, that that is very important to the well-being of our community.
[1:51:02] So I think this represents, all of this represents a reasonable compromise, and I'm willing
[1:51:07] to support what I think will be a motion from Council Member Webber.
[1:51:21] Cotton.
[1:51:21] Mayor, you're muted.
[1:51:22] Council Member Webber, do you wish to start right now?
[1:51:25] I have something I want to say.
[1:51:28] Sure.
[1:51:28] I just wanted to thank, as I did before, I want to thank the captain and lieutenant very
[1:51:34] much for finding a way to work around the K-9 unit.
[1:51:38] I know we're all going to miss Rio and Officer Mishinsky, but you found a way to work around
[1:51:46] it and I appreciate that.
[1:51:49] And especially after the effort and how Rio came into our community and our lives,
[1:51:54] It was significant at the time.
[1:51:58] The other thing I want to say is to your point, Councilmember Jonathan, when you said you
[1:52:06] look forward to opening that conversation, I do believe that given what we're all
[1:52:14] dealing with, I think that conversation could be open now.
[1:52:17] And I'd like to really look at that as soon as possible, because if we could go
[1:52:21] into the budget knowing that we're going to pay half of an SRO and maybe they'll
[1:52:27] pick up or I don't I and off the top of my head I don't know what the financial
[1:52:32] situation of the arrangement we've made with Palm Desert High School or with
[1:52:36] DSUSD as it the case may be and the SRO that we share or that we share the
[1:52:42] cost with but if there would be a way that we could open that discussion now
[1:52:47] And I think principal Fraser would understand that it's the time as we all understand, you know, this is dire circumstances.
[1:52:56] I don't want to have to wait. I think the right thing is to at least attempt to open the conversation. Thank you.
[1:53:05] Okay, thank you, Council Member Harnick. Council Member Webber.
[1:53:09] For clarification, could the city manager tell us when the last time was she discussed this issue with
[1:53:14] Principal Fraser? I'm
[1:53:19] trying to remember exactly. I believe every year that I've been city manager
[1:53:26] and typically some years we get a response after asking persistently and some years we don't
[1:53:36] give responses. So I know that I've at least had the conversation a year ago as we were
[1:53:45] doing the budget and she talks to her board about it or she reports that she talks to
[1:53:52] the board about it and the board is regularly sorry that they are not able to participate
[1:53:57] in any of the costs.
[1:53:59] So we haven't attempted this year.
[1:54:04] Did we write a letter this year?
[1:54:08] Not this year, but they did respond last year, back in June of 2019.
[1:54:17] We suggest that we approve the recommendation of staff has it, but at the same time comply
[1:54:25] with Council Member Harnick's request, which is have the conversation.
[1:54:28] And when we look at the actual budget, if there's new information, we'll consider it.
[1:54:34] We can absolutely will have that conversation again.
[1:54:38] The specific date, we sent him a letter on February 8th, and they responded back in June
[1:54:42] that they're unfortunately their budget does not allow for this added expense at this time.
[1:54:47] That was back in June 30th, excuse me, 20th of 2019.
[1:54:51] I think we have a responsibility to attempt to open that discussion again.
[1:54:55] Okay,
[1:54:59] thank you. So, does somebody want to make a motion?
[1:55:03] It looked to me like Mayor Pro Tem Kelly needed to make another comment.
[1:55:07] Just briefly, I don't usually play the part of the cynic, but I think the only way we're going
[1:55:19] to have a good conversation with them is by accepting this recommendation.
[1:55:28] I believe when we have the conversation saying we're going to cut this out of the budget
[1:55:33] and I understand what you're saying, that's how we couch the fact that we need a conversation
[1:55:38] with them.
[1:55:39] I think we bring everybody to the table with that fact.
[1:55:43] I think Council Member Jonathan at this land I would embrace, which is to accept
[1:55:54] the recommendation and then reach out. All right. Is that a motion?
[1:56:07] You're muted,
[1:56:08] Kathleen. You're muted, Mayor Pro Temp. I think Council Member Weber has been
[1:56:12] waiting patiently to make the motion. Well, of course, I'm really, really happy to
[1:56:17] make the motion and to accept this. It's kind of interesting because I was
[1:56:22] thinking in terms of our so to accept this 19.5 million dollar suggestion for
[1:56:30] our budget I was thinking and apparently erroneously that even though we're
[1:56:34] passing these voting on these tonight that in the whole of our budget is when
[1:56:39] we would ratify this so I didn't really understanding I guess that we are
[1:56:44] actually passing this as a budget line item right now. So, I think, I think the, well,
[1:56:53] clarify that.
[1:56:56] Councilmember Weber, we've had budget study sessions during which the
[1:57:00] police and fire budgets were already discussed. At that time, we did not have a unanimous
[1:57:06] thought or direction or guidance from the City Council. So, we said we would bring
[1:57:10] them back to the City Council for their direction as to how they should be included in the budget.
[1:57:18] That's what this meeting is about. It's true that the entire budget, using this information,
[1:57:25] will be presented to the City Council for their consideration at the second meeting
[1:57:30] in June. So that will be the formal action that is taken. But the direction that
[1:57:35] is given tonight will be included in the preparation of that final budget.
[1:57:40] Thank you for that clarification because that was my understanding, so I appreciate that.
[1:57:46] So I make the motion.
[1:57:47] Council Member Jonathan had something to add.
[1:57:51] I was seconding for the record because I think we had a motion, but we informally have a second.
[1:57:56] So second.
[1:57:57] We have a motion and a second. Let's take roll call, please.
[1:58:01] Council Member Hardik.
[1:58:03] Yes.
[1:58:03] Yes.
[1:58:04] Councilman Jonathan.
[1:58:06] Yes.
[1:58:07] Mayor Pertim Kelly.
[1:58:09] Yes.
[1:58:10] Councilmember Weber.
[1:58:12] Yes.
[1:58:13] Mayor Nistandi.
[1:58:14] Yes.
[1:58:15] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:58:17] Okay.
[1:58:18] Thank you very much.
[1:58:20] The next item,
[1:58:23] request for approval of policy guidelines
[1:58:26] for an emergency rental assistance program
[1:58:29] using Community Development Block Grant,
[1:58:33] CDBG-CV funds. We have a staff report, please.
[1:58:44] Yes, we do. I saw that Chris Gary is here,
[1:58:47] and we'll be providing the staff recommendation for this proposed program. Great council members.
[1:58:55] If you can bear with me one second so I can pull up the presentation.
[1:59:02] And Chris, if
[1:59:03] you can get a little closer to your microphone, that would be helpful as well. Well do.
[1:59:07] I'm just looking for the share screen.
[1:59:17] On mine, it's down at the bottom.
[1:59:20] And there it is.
[1:59:21] Thank you very much.
[1:59:34] Good evening, honorable mayor and councilmembers, Chris Gary with the city manager's office.
[1:59:39] The item presented before you this evening is the consideration of policy guidelines
[1:59:44] for an emergency rental assistance program.
[1:59:50] Tonight, I'd like to discuss the funding source of the proposed program.
[1:59:53] I'm examining.
[2:00:00] Identified community needs. Review how the program would operate. Explore some of the potential
[2:00:06] program benefits. And if approved, discuss the steps moving forward to implement the emergency
[2:00:11] rental assistance program.
[2:00:16] Under the CARES Act, the city received a special allocation of approximately
[2:00:20] 241,000 in community development block grant funds known as CDBG-CV funds. According to
[2:00:28] the act, the purpose of the funding source is to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
[2:00:32] coronavirus. Notwithstanding, these funds must fit within the framework of the CDBG program,
[2:00:38] which includes meeting the national objective of benefiting low and moderate-income people.
[2:00:44] Finally, in addition to receiving these funds, the Act also included other statutory waivers for
[2:00:48] program flexibility, which will be explained in further detail at the next council meeting.
[2:00:56] In order to determine the highest and best use of funds, our housing staff conducted
[2:01:01] outreached or affordable and market rate rental properties. In regard to affordable housing,
[2:01:06] our housing staff has been in communication with the Palm Desert Housing Authority's property
[2:01:10] manager, RPM, which oversees 15 properties totaling over 1,100 units. According to RPM,
[2:01:18] there has been an increase in considerations given to households as a result of the coronavirus,
[2:01:23] but they may not necessarily – but they haven't necessarily had substantial issues
[2:01:28] with non-payments. To explain, there is an increase in unemployment benefits under the
[2:01:33] Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program. These benefits, coupled with existing lower rental
[2:01:41] rates, are likely why non-payments have not been an issue in our affordable housing properties.
[2:01:48] In regard to market rate housing, our housing staff contacted seven
[2:01:52] rental properties, market rate rental properties, representing 1,066 total units.
[2:01:59] And of these units, there was approximately, or there was 197 or 18% non-payments or partial
[2:02:05] payments for the month of April.
[2:02:07] Housing staff has subsequently contacted RPM and these market rate rental properties
[2:02:13] regarding non-payments for the month of May.
[2:02:15] And as a result, the statistics were very similar to the prior month and mostly the
[2:02:19] same households mispayments or requested partial payments.
[2:02:23] Therefore, based upon the identified need within the community, city staff has been
[2:02:27] developing this emergency rental assistance program for market rate rental properties for
[2:02:31] council consideration.
[2:02:36] To summarize the proposed operations, the city would select a non-profit organization
[2:02:41] as a typical CDBG subrecipient to operate the program.
[2:02:45] That non-profit would work collaboratively with eligible households and rental properties
[2:02:50] to obtain the appropriate support documentation, provide case management, offer supportive
[2:02:55] services, and make funding recommendations per household.
[2:02:58] While identifying a nonprofit through a competitive process, the city would also conduct outreach
[2:03:03] to rental properties that are duplexes or greater.
[2:03:06] These rental properties would have a limited time to opt into the program for consideration
[2:03:11] to a limited amount of the initial allocation of CDBGCV funds.
[2:03:15] Upon receipt of rental property applications, city staff will make recommendations to the
[2:03:20] outside agency funding committee based upon criteria to be determined in the near future.
[2:03:25] Rental properties that do not receive an allocation may be given consideration if there are additional
[2:03:29] funds allocated towards the program in the future.
[2:03:34] Next, the selected non-profit and rental properties that receive allocations would
[2:03:38] work together on advertising the program to all eligible households that have missed
[2:03:42] payments for the month of April or the month of April or beyond relative to that particular
[2:03:47] property. Households would have a limited time or limited application time to be considered for
[2:03:55] emergency rental assistance. And finally, the nonprofit would recommend and assist eligible
[2:04:00] households in what could likely be a short-term program.
[2:04:07] There are multiple benefits to this
[2:04:09] program. For residents, emergency rental assistance would help them stabilize their
[2:04:12] housing situation. It said that the least expensive way to address homelessness is through prevention
[2:04:17] and this program aligns with that concept. Another benefit is that households will remain
[2:04:22] in their communities and that is by attempting to keep residents stably housed, they're not
[2:04:27] faced with any relocation decisions that can continue to be a part of the fabric of our
[2:04:31] great community. And furthermore, the program creates relationships with low and
[2:04:35] moderate income households who we may not typically interact with in our normal
[2:04:39] course of business. By creating this program and developing these new found relationships,
[2:04:44] we can likely provide additional supportive services that some households were not previously aware of.
[2:04:50] For rental properties, the program secures revenue that would likely be lost if households were
[2:04:56] evicted or recovers revenue sooner than may otherwise be available. In addition, while
[2:05:02] natural turnover is healthy for rental properties, there are costs incurred as well.
[2:05:08] So, generally speaking, some of the most common costs associated with rental apartment turnovers
[2:05:14] include rent loss during vacancies, marketing costs to find new tenants, time and marketing
[2:05:19] costs of screening tenant applicants, maintenance such as repairs and upkeep, paint and carpet
[2:05:25] improvements as well as cleaning.
[2:05:28] So the proposed program can reduce these vacancies and turnover costs as well.
[2:05:32] Other benefits relate to the selected non-profit organization.
[2:05:35] The program creates a funding opportunity for a non-profit in which next council meeting
[2:05:41] you'll be presented information on impacts the coronavirus has had on our non-profit
[2:05:45] community.
[2:05:46] In addition, there are multiple non-profits whose missions organizations align with
[2:05:50] this program, especially as a homelessness prevention activity.
[2:05:54] Some non-profits have great experience in housing assistance and case management,
[2:05:58] which is critical to the operation of this program.
[2:06:00] Also, the program continues to help the city build the city's, excuse me, the program
[2:06:08] helps, continues to help the city build its relationship with the non-profit community.
[2:06:14] This proposed program and non-profit funding recommendations that will be presented next
[2:06:18] council meeting, displays the city's continuous level of commitment to their great work,
[2:06:23] especially during such a challenging time.
[2:06:25] Finally, the program also alleviates the administration for city staff considering these types of programs are typically very labor-intensive.
[2:06:38] If Council is interested in this program, the first step is approving or is recommended to approve the policy guidelines which outlines eligible costs, households, rental properties, as well as prioritization.
[2:06:51] These guidelines allow city staff to begin soliciting applications from the nonprofit community in order to identify a future program operator.
[2:06:58] The guidelines also allow city staff to begin outreach to market rate rental properties.
[2:07:04] On May 28th, the city council would then be presented various HUD documents and plans
[2:07:09] for approval, which includes their emergency rental assistance program.
[2:07:14] If approved by a council, detailed program guidelines that are more operational in
[2:07:18] nature would be recommended to the outside agency funding committee for further consideration.
[2:07:24] And since time is events essence, city staff also recommends the committee be given discretion on selecting the non-profit organization to operate the program.
[2:07:34] And allowing the committee some discretion, let city staff move more expeditiously, but still provide some oversight at the policy level.
[2:07:43] Finally, allowing some discretion of the committee will be included as part of the recommendation on May 28.
[2:07:53] Therefore, city staff recommends approval of the policy guidelines.
[2:07:56] I've been discussing more process rather than the actual policy day, but I'd be happy to
[2:08:00] answer any questions regarding any particular qualifying criteria noted in the guidelines.
[2:08:05] And as previously mentioned, both the outside agency, both the city council and the outside
[2:08:11] agency funding committee will have an opportunity to review and discuss this program again
[2:08:15] in the future.
[2:08:17] And to conclude, I would like to thank our Community Development Director and his excellent
[2:08:22] staff, particularly Jessica Gonzales and Melinda Gonzales on this joint effort.
[2:08:28] And City staff are available for any questions as well.
[2:08:30] Thank you.
[2:08:33] Thank you, Mr. Garrett.
[2:08:35] That was a wonderful detailed presentation and I appreciate all the hard efforts of
[2:08:38] you and staff.
[2:08:41] Do we have any questions of staff?
[2:08:44] If you want to raise your hand, I can see everybody.
[2:08:47] Well, I'll go with Council Member Harnick this time.
[2:08:50] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:08:52] I just have a quick question.
[2:08:54] When we talk about the CDBG funds, have we gotten those?
[2:08:58] Are we sure that amount is what we're getting?
[2:09:01] Where are we on that?
[2:09:03] Sure.
[2:09:03] Council Member Harnick, we are sure we're going to get that amount.
[2:09:07] That is what our allocation is by formula.
[2:09:11] Essentially what we have to do is amend our action plan,
[2:09:13] which I will come back with on the 28th, if that is the direction of counsel.
[2:09:18] Okay, thank you.
[2:09:20] Council Member Jonathan, I saw you raise your hand.
[2:09:23] Yes, thank you, Mayor. I tried to sit outside of the sun over here.
[2:09:28] So, first of all, Chris, thank you and congratulations. Once again, a very creative
[2:09:33] approach and seizing the moment.
[2:09:38] That's just terrific. Great job. Thank you for that.
[2:09:42] I have two quick questions. Number one, I don't see in here, and I'm sure it'll kind of materialize when you create the operational guidelines.
[2:09:53] But can we expect some assurance that the funds will actually be used for rent as opposed to just handing somebody a $5,000 check and then they spend it on whatever they want?
[2:10:03] Absolutely. Council Member Jonathan, with CDBG funds, they consider these, I call them
[2:10:08] my, I forget the term, I think it's subsistence payments or something like that, but one
[2:10:13] of the regulations with CDBG is the funding has to go directly to the property owner, cannot
[2:10:19] go to a resident. Okay. Very good. And my second question is in your attachment
[2:10:27] to your report in category three, one of the bullet points says that eligible properties
[2:10:34] would consist of at least two contiguous rental properties together.
[2:10:39] So in other words, everything other than a single family residence, why would we include,
[2:10:44] why would we exclude a single family residence if it otherwise qualifies?
[2:10:50] You know, just in an attempt to define certain parameters, that was essentially just what
[2:10:59] the recommendation was.
[2:11:03] Okay.
[2:11:05] I'm sorry.
[2:11:06] Oh, no.
[2:11:06] I was going to say, yeah, I just, it was the assumption that it was just a separate
[2:11:12] rental unit rather than a single-family home.
[2:11:15] But beyond that, there's nothing statutorily that regulates that.
[2:11:21] Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of families, especially in our areas that would qualify that live in
[2:11:27] a single-family residence, and sometimes it's multiple generations of families.
[2:11:32] So maybe that one item needs to be rethought.
[2:11:35] Thank you.
[2:11:38] Thank you. That's a very big point you made. And I think Council Member Webber, you had
[2:11:44] a question along that line for clarification. Mr. Gary, you're saying that we have 11,000
[2:11:54] rental units, but we're only going to be able to help approximately 40 with this 241,000.
[2:12:00] Out of that 241,000, do we know an amount that we're going to allocate to city administrative
[2:12:06] cost and do you have an estimated amount that is going to be given to the non-profit
[2:12:11] to handle this and then how much would that leave to distribute to a rent and along council
[2:12:20] member Jonathan's comment for a single family home I would presume that the monthly rent
[2:12:27] would eat up that $5,000 that's the maximum it would go pretty quickly.
[2:12:33] So I understand that you would choose apartments or something like this in thinking that we
[2:12:39] could pay maybe three help them pay at least three months worth or something of that nature.
[2:12:44] So three questions do we have an estimated cost for the the nonprofit to handle it and
[2:12:51] out of the 241,000 how much is the city going to get and is that well you said
[2:12:57] that approximately 40 to 50 households that we might be able to help.
[2:13:01] And that is out of the 1,000?
[2:13:03] Yes or no?
[2:13:04] Thank you.
[2:13:05] Great.
[2:13:07] So, to those questions, in regard to estimated budget, that's a little bit difficult of
[2:13:12] a question to answer that I think will probably be answered next council meeting.
[2:13:17] And for the reason of, although this is CDBGCV funds, there are certain statutory
[2:13:22] These statutory waivers also apply to our 2000 or to our newest allocation as well as any leftover funds from 2019. So it's kind of although we have this 241,000 there's also additional funds and there's also additional activities that impact that total budget.
[2:13:38] it. My personal goal would be somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $200,000 towards
[2:13:46] this program absent of administrative cost or cost towards a non-profit organization
[2:13:52] because that at least at $200,000, at $5,000 per household, which is at that amount, that's
[2:14:01] at least 40 households. I would think to have a goal, I think 40 is probably a minimum
[2:14:06] amount of households to be served. I would like to get it more towards 60 even
[2:14:11] if it's you know filling the gaps of partial payments or something of that
[2:14:16] nature but I think a lot of it depends on really kind of getting the
[2:14:18] applications and really sitting down with the case manager and reviewing them
[2:14:22] and coming up coming up to certain determinations based on different
[2:14:26] properties and income levels. I believe that was one of the questions
[2:14:31] as far as nonprofits I was thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 20
[2:14:35] to 30,000, I would imagine a non-profit would ask for.
[2:14:40] It's kind of an arbitrary number.
[2:14:43] I'm just thinking that this program is probably short-lived in the terms of three to four
[2:14:47] months because it's paid rental arrears. So, as far as cost, I think
[2:15:00] It's a short-term program. It's really just processing it within the next few months. So, that's probably my best estimate for that amount.
[2:15:12] Okay. Council Member Webber, did you have any of the questions? Okay. Mayor Pro Tem, Kathleen Kelly.
[2:15:18] No questions. I want to add my expression of gratitude for all of the work that's
[2:15:28] gotten into this, and I'm particularly appreciative that this has been pushed
[2:15:35] along very expeditiously to get help to people on a timely basis to keep them
[2:15:43] in their houses to avert real drama to these residents. So thank you very, very much.
[2:15:57] Welcome. Yes, I think your sentiments are shared by all of us and do we need any
[2:16:05] discussion or are we ready to make a motion? May I one moment I'd like to
[2:16:11] follow up on councilmember Jonathan's idea about single family residents because to your point
[2:16:18] Mr. Gary when you said sometimes they may just be supplemental though maybe it's just part of the
[2:16:24] rent. If we can save anybody from being out on the street it's worth it and we may have some
[2:16:32] single family residents that if we you know if it's a thousand dollars or two thousand
[2:16:38] and we keep them current with their rent.
[2:16:42] And I think we need to look at that.
[2:16:46] That's a great point I think
[2:16:47] that Council Member Jennifer made.
[2:16:49] Thank you Council.
[2:16:51] Oh, excuse me, I was just going to build upon that
[2:16:55] because the other related situation
[2:17:00] that's foreclosed by the current language
[2:17:03] which is an ATU that's rented out would not qualify
[2:17:11] under the current language
[2:17:13] because it's not too contiguous units.
[2:17:16] And we could easily have some people in those
[2:17:21] auxiliary dwelling units who could benefit from this program.
[2:17:28] Yeah, all good points.
[2:17:30] Thank you to both of you.
[2:17:32] I would move approval for the request by staff for approval of these policy guidelines, but
[2:17:39] I would remove the limitations on both the ADU and the exclusion of single-family residences.
[2:17:49] That at least gives staff the opportunity.
[2:17:51] I mean, the applications are going to come in.
[2:17:52] You can say yes.
[2:17:53] You can say no.
[2:17:54] But at least you have the ability to review those kinds of situations.
[2:18:00] So that would be my motion.
[2:18:03] I would like to second it.
[2:18:05] Okay.
[2:18:06] And thank you, because I believe it's so meaningful to our community.
[2:18:11] Thank you.
[2:18:11] Thank you.
[2:18:12] Okay, City Clerk, do you want to take a roll call, please?
[2:18:26] Clerk, we're ready to take a roll call.
[2:18:27] We're muted now.
[2:18:32] City Clerk, we're ready.
[2:18:33] I apologize for that.
[2:18:35] Council Member Harnick.
[2:18:37] Yes.
[2:18:38] Councilman Jonathan.
[2:18:39] Yes.
[2:18:40] Mayor Pertin Kelly.
[2:18:42] Yes.
[2:18:43] Yes.
[2:18:43] Councilmember Weber.
[2:18:45] Yes.
[2:18:45] Mayor Nistandi.
[2:18:47] Yes.
[2:18:47] Motion carries 5-0.
[2:18:51] Okay.
[2:18:52] So the next item is request for approval of Tom Desert's 2020 Independence Day Celebration.
[2:19:01] Do we have a report on this?
[2:19:09] I'm Mayor Nistandi and Councilmembers.
[2:19:11] My name is Vanessa Meager and I'm Management Analyst in the Economic Development Department.
[2:19:14] permit. I'm here today because we have before you the 2020 Independence Day Celebrations
[2:19:21] Task Report. And Thomas Cole, our marketing manager and myself are here to answer any questions
[2:19:26] you might have.
[2:19:30] All right. I'll start with, well, let me just look. Does anyone have any questions?
[2:19:37] Looking at my fellow council members, there are no questions. Does anyone want to discuss
[2:19:42] anything? Do we have a motion?
[2:19:44] I have a comment, please. I just have a quick comment. This is a tough, I don't know when
[2:19:52] I've missed the fireworks. I go every year and, you know, for my moment of Americana,
[2:20:00] what makes America great is moments of sacrifice sometimes. And this is one of those things.
[2:20:04] And I know there'll be a lot of people from across our valley who will be disappointed.
[2:20:09] But I am so impressed with the creative approach to really do something special.
[2:20:17] And I really appreciate the effort that's been put into this.
[2:20:22] I think it's a great staff report.
[2:20:25] And I look forward to seeing how this is going to work out.
[2:20:28] And I also look forward to 2021's fireworks.
[2:20:34] Also, Mr. Jonathan.
[2:20:36] Thank you.
[2:20:36] I so agree with Councilmember Harnick.
[2:20:38] we will miss this. I also want to say that Vanessa sure looks bright in front of City
[2:20:43] Hall right now compared to what I'm looking at, but there you go. You know, I want to
[2:20:49] commend staff because rather than just saying, cancelling the fireworks celebration, which
[2:20:53] many cities, if not virtually most, if not all cities are doing, you came up with
[2:20:59] a plan B that maybe will enable our community to celebrate Independence Day in a respectful
[2:21:05] social distancing manner. So thank you for coming up with Plan B. Much appreciated.
[2:21:13] All right. So do we have a motion to approve staff's recommendation?
[2:21:18] So moved.
[2:21:20] Second?
[2:21:21] Well, second.
[2:21:25] I'll give a second to the mayor.
[2:21:27] Okay, thank you. All right, City Clerk, we are ready for a roll call vote.
[2:21:32] Council Member Harnick.
[2:21:33] Yes.
[2:21:34] Councilman Jonathan.
[2:21:35] Yes.
[2:21:36] Mayor Pertin Kelly.
[2:21:38] Yes.
[2:21:39] Council Member Weber.
[2:21:40] Yes, mayor Nisdandy. Yes, motion carries five zero. Thank you.
[2:21:47] Okay, so now
[2:21:51] We have an agenda addendum and it's
[2:21:58] Request for direction from the city council regarding issue with a letter concerning the governor's orders for the COVID-19
[2:22:04] Public health emergency and I believe we all have a copy of the letter
[2:22:09] that has come from the county supervisors office. Thank you mayor. The board of
[2:22:18] supervisors voted to send the letter to the governor expressing several things
[2:22:23] that they were concerned about with recent orders that have been given. In
[2:22:27] particular they're concerned that the benchmarks that are being put forth for
[2:22:31] moving out of stage 2 and into stage 3 simply are not attainable for many
[2:22:38] jurisdictions including the County of Riverside. They also indicated that they respected and would
[2:22:46] appreciate more guidance provided by the state but that they do want additional input into the
[2:22:55] process to make it appropriate for individual and different areas of the state based upon
[2:23:01] their specific conditions. The Board of Supervisors circulated their letter to each of the
[2:23:07] cities within their jurisdiction and ask if the mayors of those cities would like to sign
[2:23:13] on to the letter for support and they ask that the councils discuss authorizing their
[2:23:21] mayor to sign that letter. I'm available to answer any questions you might have.
[2:23:28] Well, I just say I hope my fellow council members will want to sign on to this letter
[2:23:32] so we can present a united front to Governor Newsom because we really need to start being
[2:23:38] a united front and not be so disparate between one city doing this another city doing that
[2:23:45] and the county is our best vehicle to push things forward it's not to say we're going to agree 100
[2:23:52] percent with the county but I think we've got so much more in common than we don't so my intent
[2:23:59] is I really appreciate it if we could just be a united front and I
[2:24:08] muted myself are there any
[2:24:09] questions asked the city manager or should we just go straight to discussion? I
[2:24:19] guess I'll offer some discussion. I would love to be able to respond to your
[2:24:30] plea for a united front, I really would. And if this letter really perfectly matched the
[2:24:44] summary that was just given, I probably could. The problem I'm having is that the letter
[2:24:54] is very, very confusing. As it's written, as I understand it, the county is making a
[2:25:07] push to change the criteria for moving through the stages of reopening so that they better
[2:25:18] knowledge, the conditions of an urban setting. That's good. I also understand that the county
[2:25:27] is making a push for some individualized treatment of distinct regions like the Coachella Valley.
[2:25:39] That's good. But the letter seems to be asking that the state just kind of drop all regulation
[2:25:52] and trust the county to take care of things and be reasonable. That I have a problem with
[2:26:02] after watching two meetings of the County Board of Supervisors, because reason doesn't always seem to prevail.
[2:26:14] And I'm not saying that about our supervisor, who I think was very impressive in his statements,
[2:26:22] But as a body, the actions of the County Board of Supervisors didn't leave me comfortable
[2:26:35] with the notion that that would be the sole location for decision-making and striking the
[2:26:45] balance between public safety and getting our businesses open, which we're all desperate
[2:26:53] to accomplish. So I love the goals that the city manager stated. I'm not comfortable with
[2:27:04] the letter. Thank you for your comment. And I will say I believe they voted five to zero,
[2:27:10] which included our supervisor for reds. So they did vote five to zero. And I can anyone
[2:27:16] else have comments? Councilmember Jonathan. Thank you, Mayor. I understand the concerns
[2:27:24] that you have, Mayor Pro Tem. I don't know that to me, the letter is pretty clear. I
[2:27:29] think the governor, most people would find the thresholds, the benchmarks that were
[2:27:34] set as unachievable and probably unrealistic. So he has allowed individual counties to come
[2:27:43] up with a plan of their own for state approval that would allow those jurisdictions to move
[2:27:48] forward with their own plan that balances health safety along with the economy, and
[2:27:57] it's up to the state to approve it. The governor has approved two counties already.
[2:28:02] country. I would love for Riverside County to be the very next county based on a plan.
[2:28:10] So I think essentially this letter lays the framework, the groundwork for that. It is
[2:28:16] thoughtful and respectful, which I know was a concern with previous correspondents.
[2:28:21] So to me, it kind of checks off all the boxes. I will say that the most compelling
[2:28:25] sentence in the entire letter that I think really speaks to me is the one that says
[2:28:31] by empowering local governments to make decisions based on information unique to local communities,
[2:28:38] we can fundamentally change the course of this depression-headed economy.
[2:28:43] And I think that's what this is all about.
[2:28:44] So I would support a motion authorizing our mayor to co-sign the letter.
[2:28:55] President.
[2:28:55] President Carnick.
[2:28:58] So I think there's a lot of good points I've heard.
[2:29:01] I get concerned with a virus particularly when we talk about local control because it's
[2:29:09] not specifically local.
[2:29:11] And that's why I had even earlier said I'd like to see us do CVAG as a guiding force
[2:29:16] to bring everybody together because Coachella Valley, because of its geographic isolation,
[2:29:23] we do have a different issue than west of the past.
[2:29:27] And I would love to see us work together.
[2:29:29] And what we're seeing in so many other instances in our valley, we're not as effective when
[2:29:36] each city does not work together.
[2:29:38] And we have all these different, it's a checkerboard kind of approach we're taking.
[2:29:43] So I would love to see us work together.
[2:29:45] of what has given me a reason to believe this will be.
[2:30:00] And I think the somewhat successful is the team that has been put together to come up with
[2:30:07] the economic recovery and the thought on this. And we have representatives from our valley
[2:30:16] who will weigh in, and I respect all of them that have been chosen from our valley, and
[2:30:20] I think they'll be great voices for our valley. And I'm sure they'll have a voice
[2:30:25] in this plan that's being put together.
[2:30:30] So I, do I love 100% of the letter?
[2:30:35] No, but I do believe that it's moving us
[2:30:38] in the right direction and helping us,
[2:30:42] one size does not fit all and this is the perfect example.
[2:30:45] So I think we can do better when we deal with our county
[2:30:49] and the regions of our counties separately
[2:30:51] from what the state has mandated.
[2:30:55] Thank you, Council Member Harnick. Council Member Webber, did you want to add to the discussion?
[2:31:01] No, other than to say I fully support you signing this letter, I do not approve of a governor who doesn't live here trying to tell us how to run our city.
[2:31:11] Okay, so.
[2:31:12] Mayor, understanding I have a public comment.
[2:31:16] Let's hear the public comment.
[2:31:19] This one is from Terry Applegate.
[2:31:24] Palm Desert needs a face covering and physical distancing requirement.
[2:31:30] I am not a resident of the city, but I shop at certain businesses there.
[2:31:34] I have greatly curtailed grocery shopping since March.
[2:31:37] Since the County Board of Supervisors lifted these requirements, businesses are responding in their own way.
[2:31:43] Some have lifted the requirement while others are still mandating them.
[2:31:48] Many people pledge to only patronize businesses that require face coverings and physical distancing.
[2:31:53] What happens to businesses that are already hurting by COVID when residents decide to patronize enterprises outside of Palm Desert.
[2:32:02] Tax revenues will drop and more local businesses will close.
[2:32:06] I am opposed to Riverside County reopening plan.
[2:32:09] This county has the second highest COVID caseload and death rate in the state.
[2:32:14] The current trajectory from the public health department shows a rising caseload. It has not peaked or plateaued.
[2:32:21] The state requires counties to have the number of full-time contact tracing staff equal to triple the average number of cases over a 14-day period.
[2:32:32] That's an average of 107 cases per day. We need 320 more contact tracers.
[2:32:39] The county reports that they have 70 tracers with 200 being recruited.
[2:32:45] Being recruited is not the same as being trained and ready to go.
[2:32:49] They want to move to an accelerated stage 2 with 200 fewer contact tracers in place,
[2:32:57] then we are needed.
[2:32:59] The plan lacks concrete plans to keep employees and the public safe.
[2:33:07] Businesses are encouraged to develop safe opening plans rather than required.
[2:33:12] When inserting should or if possible, it negates any requirement to act.
[2:33:17] The county says it is still developing protocols for essential workers.
[2:33:22] There wasn't a paragraph on specific stage two plans.
[2:33:26] Practical methods to expand curbside retail and how high tech, low tech, as restaurant pagers or apps,
[2:33:37] and to no tech can be smartly designed.
[2:33:39] how do you go from still developing protocols for essential workers to
[2:33:44] opening hair and nail salons where physical distancing is impossible? The
[2:33:50] supervisors argue that California requirements make it impossible for the
[2:33:54] county to reopen. No, it is not impossible, but more work is needed to open
[2:34:00] safely both in the Coachella Valley and countywide. Terry Applegate, licensed
[2:34:05] occupational therapist. That's all. Thank you, Gracie. So do we have a motion? I'll move a
[2:34:17] direction to staff or I guess just authorizing our mayor to sign on to the letter. Thank you and
[2:34:24] do we have a second? Let's take a roll call vote please. Council Member Harnick. Yes.
[2:34:36] Councilman
[2:34:36] Partem Kelly. No. Councilmember Weber. Yes. Mayor Nisdandy. Yes. Motion carries for one
[2:34:45] with Mayor Partem Kelly voting no.
[2:34:55] Okay, so now we have the urgency item before us, which
[2:35:07] is the request for consideration to adopt the City of Latina's approach to the issue
[2:35:14] of facial coverings and social distancing when inside stores and businesses.
[2:35:20] I'm sorry, aren't we missing an item, the other agenda item for the economic business?
[2:35:28] I think that's under all business that would be next.
[2:35:31] My apologies.
[2:35:32] We're almost done.
[2:35:34] We have this and then the old business.
[2:35:38] Mayor and members of the City Council, this item was added by, before his vote
[2:35:42] of the council earlier in the meeting. This was presented at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Kelly
[2:35:49] who witnessed what was done recently by the city of La Quinta and wanted the full city council to
[2:35:55] consider taking a similar action. La Quinta recently passed an executive order which would
[2:36:02] continue the county public health officers mandate that was recently rescinded but that
[2:36:11] It requires the use of face covering and social distancing inside a grocery store or inside
[2:36:16] of a drug store.
[2:36:17] It also then goes on and strongly recommends, but does not require, strongly recommends
[2:36:22] that all other businesses within the city require the use of face coverings and social
[2:36:28] distancing and that they post notices conspicuously at their business to let people entering
[2:36:34] their stores know of their respective policies.
[2:36:37] A copy of the order that was recently enacted by the city of Laquinta is
[2:36:45] attached to this report that was, excuse me, attached to the agenda item that was
[2:36:50] circulated earlier this afternoon. It also went on to describe the face
[2:36:57] coverings that they're recommending be worn in grocery stores and drug
[2:37:00] drugstores and be added at the request of business owners for individual business owners, they
[2:37:10] recommended that those be net-gaters, masks, scarves, bandanas, but that they discourage
[2:37:20] people from using personal protective equipment or N95 masks because those are needed for
[2:37:28] medical reasons. This item is up to the City Council for consideration. Enactment of an
[2:37:36] order like this would be consistent with recent actions taken by a number of the other Valley
[2:37:43] Cities.
[2:37:47] Okay, so go ahead, Council Member Harnick. I have a question. I read about it. I did not
[2:37:55] witness the passing of it. My question is why do you suppose in other businesses it's
[2:38:02] not important to wear a face covering but it is in a grocery store? Why, like if you went
[2:38:07] to a computer repair which is an essential business, why wouldn't it be important to
[2:38:12] wear one there? Does anybody know that?
[2:38:16] Well, I think part of it is the jury still out how beneficial face coverings actually
[2:38:24] are. You can go to the, I mean, if you go to the state CDC website, they've got information
[2:38:29] on that. They're strongly suggesting it, but they're not making it mandatory. And I never
[2:38:35] thought I would agree with one thing Governor Newsom is telling us to do, but he is strongly
[2:38:42] suggesting the wearing of face masks, but they're not making it mandatory because
[2:38:47] the science just isn't there. And they're saying the most important thing is social
[2:38:52] distancing, washing your hands, sanitizing and as far as I know every grocery store that I've been
[2:39:00] into and I've been going almost every day has a big sign you must wear face coverings or you
[2:39:05] can't go in. So we're already doing this and my hesitation on voting to approve this is that
[2:39:12] you know the five county supervisors are already taking so much heat as it is in the community
[2:39:19] on Facebook and everywhere else and all that they really did was to say you know
[2:39:25] what we're going to follow state guidelines now and not create these more
[2:39:30] strict guidelines if that's all we're doing is following state guidelines and
[2:39:36] I can't has anyone seen anybody in a grocery store without a face mask I haven't
[2:39:42] and they won't let you in.
[2:39:43] But I just, before we get into discussion,
[2:39:50] I think there are some public comments on this topic.
[2:39:55] And I know you meant to just ask a question,
[2:40:00] but it seemed to take us into discussion.
[2:40:03] So maybe we should get the public comments.
[2:40:07] I don't have any public comments that asked to specifically read them out loud.
[2:40:18] They were delivered to city council members via email.
[2:40:22] All right.
[2:40:23] I understand.
[2:40:25] Thank you.
[2:40:27] All right.
[2:40:29] So we'll go back to Councilman Harnick.
[2:40:31] Were you finished?
[2:40:32] Well, I was finished with questions.
[2:40:34] Are we having discussion now?
[2:40:37] Does anyone else have a question? Seeing none, we're moving into discussion.
[2:40:42] Okay. Thank you, Mayor. My thought on this is, you know, there is a reason when you're
[2:40:50] in an operating room, everybody has a face mask on. And it's not necessarily to protect
[2:40:55] themselves but to protect others. And what we're trying to do, I believe, people are
[2:41:04] upset. There is a level of fear because of this virus. What we're trying to do is instill
[2:41:10] confidence with people. We want them to come back to our businesses. And if we all read
[2:41:16] the communications we received by email, there were a lot that expressed what the last person
[2:41:24] on the last subject said. And all we're trying, if there are people who don't want
[2:41:30] wear masks. I get it, but it's not for yourself. It's for others. We want to raise that feeling
[2:41:37] of safety, of security in our community. And we don't want to create further confusion by,
[2:41:45] is it Indian Wells or is it Palm Desert? Do we wear it here? Don't we wear it there?
[2:41:50] I think it's easy to say when you leave your home, put a mask on, there's no one around.
[2:41:56] You don't have to have a mask on.
[2:41:58] If you're coming in close contact or within what we would believe was the cure of physical
[2:42:02] distancing, put your mask back on.
[2:42:05] I think it makes it easy for people who are trying to raise confidence for our visitors
[2:42:11] and our community members.
[2:42:13] I would absolutely support going actually further than LaQuinta's.
[2:42:17] I think to say, when you go to a drugstore or a grocery store, it doesn't really
[2:42:25] answer all the questions. Why not when you go into the computer repair store? Why
[2:42:30] not when you go pick up your food? Why wouldn't you just do that to create that
[2:42:34] level of confidence? So that's my feeling. I mean you can go on Facebook and
[2:42:39] you can go on all sorts of different things and they say they've got great
[2:42:44] reasons why it's so bad for you and it's you know it's like Abe Lincoln
[2:42:49] can say don't believe everything you read on Facebook.
[2:42:52] So I just, I think what we're trying to do is make our visitors
[2:42:56] and community members feel safe and secure in our community
[2:43:00] and we want them back in our businesses as soon as possible.
[2:43:04] And I think we achieve that goal through face masks,
[2:43:07] face coverings and with respectful physical distancing.
[2:43:12] Thank you.
[2:43:15] Thank you.
[2:43:17] Mayor Pro Tem, Kathleen Kelly.
[2:43:19] Let
[2:43:22] me try to make three points as quickly as I can. First,
[2:43:35] it's important to elaborate
[2:43:38] just a little bit on what Council Member Arnick said as to the objective of wearing a face
[2:43:49] We now know that one of the reasons this virus is so much more problematic than the common
[2:44:00] flu is that people can carry it and give it to others often for five days before they
[2:44:12] have any awareness of illness and one of the paramount ways that the virus is
[2:44:22] spread is through the droplets that emerge when we speak, when we sing, when we
[2:44:31] express ourselves. So the whole purpose of the mask is to prevent the person
[2:44:40] who does not yet know they are a carrier from leaving pathogens in other people's path.
[2:44:51] And that's why we're here.
[2:45:00] We're hearing from so many people who want the assurance that it's mandatory so that when
[2:45:07] they go to an essential business they can be assured that those who have shopped there before
[2:45:13] them have worn the mask so as to restrict the omission of pathogens. Every, to my knowledge,
[2:45:24] such every other city in the Coachella Valley has now addressed this issue by responding
[2:45:34] to that constituent plea or some assurance that folks are required to wear masks at least
[2:45:48] in essential businesses. And so to the extent we're working hard to get the
[2:45:56] state to acknowledge that the Coachella Valley as a unit should be treated as a
[2:46:03] distinct region, we really need to get on board with our sister city so there's
[2:46:12] common practice that gives the state assurance of what's happening here to keep
[2:46:20] the virus under control. Like Councilmember Harnick, I could certainly support
[2:46:31] extending the mandatory policy to all essential businesses. I suggested simply adopting the
[2:46:44] Lakita policy for two reasons. The poor public is confused after death.
[2:46:55] And among the cities
[2:46:59] that border prom desert, Laquinta is probably closest to us in character. We do have a somewhat
[2:47:09] larger population, but demographically, Laquinta is similar, has a similar mix between residences
[2:47:18] and businesses. So I simply thought it would be helpful to the public, since the public
[2:47:27] doesn't pay close attention to where boundary lines are if they could just ingest one policy.
[2:47:37] And our colleagues over on the Lakinda Council worked very hard to hammer this out as a policy
[2:47:49] that wouldn't go further than necessary by way of mandates. They stroke to strike a balance.
[2:48:00] So understanding that we have a diversity of views around this issue, I thought it would be most productive
[2:48:11] to point us toward simply joining our colleagues in La Quinta so that there's some regional
[2:48:20] consistency.
[2:48:22] Well, Mayor Pro Tem, thank you for those comments and I would end though to say in order to
[2:48:30] have unity and less confusion for the public, we should stick with the county orders
[2:48:36] years. And that, I believe, brings the most certainty. And all grocery stores, all pharmacies,
[2:48:48] I've been to several, have the sign that you must wear a mask. And I have not seen anyone
[2:48:55] not wearing a mask. And I know that once we start reopening our businesses, I believe
[2:49:02] most businesses are going to require their employees and customers to wear a mask. And
[2:49:07] I just want to be a united front with the county because we've got bigger issues ahead of us
[2:49:15] with the state and the governor. So I just want us to be a united front and not be taking a couple
[2:49:20] of steps backwards. The five supervisors basically put their necks on the line to try to move us
[2:49:26] forward with the governor. And now here we are, I believe, pulling the rug underneath five supervisors
[2:49:32] saying, well, you know, thank you, but no, thank you. I listened to the meetings, too,
[2:49:37] and that they were deliberative, and there was people on both sides of the issues.
[2:49:41] And there's a lot of people that believe we are violating civil liberties. And I, for one,
[2:49:47] also believe we're crossing that line with civil liberties.
[2:49:55] So is there anyone else?
[2:49:56] I have a question. What cities in our valley, in our little region, require face coverings?
[2:50:07] Does anybody know that? I think Coachella does.
[2:50:10] And it is my belief today that all of them do accept possibly Intio, but the news reported
[2:50:22] today that Cathedral City and Coachella joined the list of those making face cup springs
[2:50:32] mandatory while springs, desert hot springs, Indian wells had already done so.
[2:50:39] And I believe I saw reporting in the deserts on the Trench on Rochester.
[2:50:47] I'm eager to hear from our two other council members, but I'll quickly share it in response to the comments just made.
[2:51:01] One of the fronts where we currently have confusion.
[2:51:05] is that some people are condemning businesses don't have the authority to make face coverings
[2:51:17] mandatory since the county removed the mandate and that's causing some significant disputes
[2:51:28] and consternation. So we're far from having clarity. What what we all agree upon is that we want our
[2:51:39] businesses to be able to open and to do it successfully. We all agree upon that. And we're
[2:51:48] We're hearing from so many people that their sense of comfort coming out and patronizing
[2:51:56] our businesses is going to hinge on whether or not we have a policy such as this in place.
[2:52:07] So it's geared to support our recovery.
[2:52:11] It's geared to support our return to a vibrant economy and I want to be perfectly clear that
[2:52:20] I don't see that as a conflict between the public health and business interests.
[2:52:28] The two are completely in sync on this front because the public has to feel safe in order
[2:52:40] for our businesses to succeed.
[2:52:45] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, for your comments. Does
[2:52:47] Council Member Jonathan have any comments to make?
[2:52:52] Yes. I've learned that if I don't
[2:52:53] interrupt, I don't get a chance to talk.
[2:52:59] Susan Marie, would you like to go next?
[2:53:01] Go right ahead. Okay. Actually, when I saw this, I was
[2:53:08] because I honestly still am on the fence because limiting government action is so important
[2:53:15] in my mind.
[2:53:15] In my years on this planet, I find that the more government acts, the worse our lives get.
[2:53:22] So I'm very hesitant to implement a rule that we're not required to.
[2:53:29] On the other hand, the comments that are made are just so cogent because I think
[2:53:35] that in this case requiring face masks does serve the dual purpose of helping to lay the
[2:53:43] foundation for reinvigorating our businesses and at the same time whether it's effective
[2:53:49] or not is a step towards greater personal health.
[2:53:54] So I've just been listening and I'm still a little bit on the fence but I do know that
[2:53:59] But in my mind, to Council Member Harnick's question, probably the reason grocery stores,
[2:54:05] drug stores are being singled out is currently they're the stores with the largest crowds.
[2:54:10] Most other stores like I went to Ace Hardware and so forth, they limit how many people
[2:54:15] can go into their store and you stand in line to get in.
[2:54:17] That's not the case with grocery stores and drug stores.
[2:54:20] So maybe that's the reasoning behind it.
[2:54:22] It is in my mind.
[2:54:23] I think paragraph 2 oddly encourages face masks in the other businesses but doesn't encourage
[2:54:32] face masks and social distancing in public settings.
[2:54:35] And I think that's equally important for walking down the street on El Paseo.
[2:54:40] Personally, I appreciate when the person coming at me is wearing a face mask because I don't
[2:54:43] know if they're sick or not.
[2:54:44] So I think we can perhaps modify that.
[2:54:47] that, I would not be in favor of expanding either the requirement or the encouragement
[2:54:55] beyond that. I mean, I think, and I think maybe it was Mayor Portuncale who said we
[2:54:59] need to find a kind of a bright line, and I wouldn't want to go beyond the restrictions
[2:55:06] in this model, but other than to include face masks and social distancing in public.
[2:55:14] Along those same lines, paragraph three, I just find kind of onerous and unnecessary.
[2:55:19] I don't think we need to start getting into definitions, face masks or face masks.
[2:55:23] People are wearing all different kinds.
[2:55:24] I don't think the signs is clear which ones are effective, which ones aren't.
[2:55:28] And our police force is certainly not going to go into stores to see if somebody's wearing
[2:55:32] an N95 mask or whatever.
[2:55:34] So I think Council Member Harnick earlier in today's meeting said, let's not
[2:55:39] create rules and laws that we can't enforce.
[2:55:44] So if we do move forward with this,
[2:55:47] I would suggest those modifications to paragraph two
[2:55:51] and probably eliminating paragraph three.
[2:55:57] Thank you.
[2:55:58] Also, Jonathan, when you say public places,
[2:56:01] are you also referring to golf courses
[2:56:03] and everything else, whether or not they don't have to,
[2:56:07] you know, if you're outside,
[2:56:08] say you're exercising, you're by yourselves. So public is a very broad word.
[2:56:14] That's such a good point, Mayor. Thank you. I wouldn't touch golf courses. I think they're
[2:56:18] following their own standards based on their national organizations and those have been
[2:56:22] deemed acceptable. When I say public places and maybe staff can help better define it,
[2:56:28] but I'm really referring to like the parks and the streets where people cross each other.
[2:56:35] When I hike, I have something around my neck. When you get to a point when you see somebody
[2:56:40] coming, you just pull it over your face. It's a courtesy thing.
[2:56:44] Yeah, and I agree. And that's what we've been doing this while. I think many people
[2:56:48] do. They have them hanging here. And as soon as they come, they see somebody coming
[2:56:51] at them, they put it up. And I don't think that's too much to ask. But again, it's
[2:56:56] a balance. I'm torn. I get both sides. But I think in this instance, I can support
[2:57:02] this emergency action, as I said, with maybe some of those two revisions.
[2:57:11] Now my turn. Your turn, Council Member Weber.
[2:57:14] Well, yeah, I appreciate what Council Members Harnick and Jonathan are saying, and I agree with that.
[2:57:20] When I'm out in public, I put on my mask. I think my mask is going to prevent me from inhaling any of those floating little things that might be in the air.
[2:57:31] I trust our businesses to make their own decisions on putting up a sign, kind of like when they
[2:57:38] would have the signs up, no shoes, no service, that kind of a thing.
[2:57:42] They can put their signs up to say, we require masks in this business and then I can decide
[2:57:47] whether or not I want to go into that business or not.
[2:57:51] And even if they don't have a sign up, I can wear my own mask.
[2:57:55] I'm an adult.
[2:57:56] I can make my own decision to wear a mask.
[2:57:58] I don't need another level of government involvement to mandate or tell me I have to wear a mask
[2:58:06] on certain businesses, because now we've got government involved and already we're
[2:58:11] starting to say, well, how do I define open space?
[2:58:14] How do I define essential?
[2:58:16] How, how, how?
[2:58:17] We don't need another government level to tell us what to do.
[2:58:22] We already have the county telling us what to do.
[2:58:25] We have people that have their own brains.
[2:58:26] We have businesses that already know what they need to do.
[2:58:30] They don't want their workers ill,
[2:58:33] so they're going to protect their workers.
[2:58:35] They are going to be mindful of the clientele that come in,
[2:58:39] spacing them out, whatever's necessary
[2:58:41] until we get a handle on this.
[2:58:44] But they don't need, and I don't need,
[2:58:47] government telling me that if I'm going to walk down the street,
[2:58:50] I must have my mask on.
[2:58:52] I don't need that government oversight.
[2:58:54] I'm not stupid. If I see another person, I can put on my mask. Same for the other person.
[2:59:00] But I don't support doing another level of this because everything is changing every time
[2:59:09] we turn around. There's another report and something has changed. If we go to all this
[2:59:12] trouble to pass this, then we'd have to go to all the trouble to undo it. It's just
[2:59:17] too much of a complication in what we're trying to do right now. I respect people's
[2:59:22] own intelligence to take care of themselves. They don't need nanny government to come in
[2:59:27] and tell them what to do. And I respect our businesses to make their own decisions.
[2:59:32] If they open up and don't require masks, the people should be sending them an email, not us,
[2:59:38] and saying, I'm not going to go to your business anymore if you don't require masks.
[2:59:42] And then a business will say, for me to stay in business, I will have to require masks.
[2:59:47] But we can leave that decision up to them. And I would encourage all those people that
[2:59:52] sent us e-mails, I strong.
[3:00:00] I strongly encourage them to send the same email to the businesses that they have said to
[3:00:04] us they're not going to go there anymore unless there's a mask. That's who they should send
[3:00:08] the email to. And I trust the business's judgment. I trust the individual's judgment.
[3:00:13] When they see another person to put their mask on, I like it when they wear their mask
[3:00:18] around me. I think that's very respectful. But if they don't, I'm wearing my own for
[3:00:23] my own protection. So I would not support us doing anything like this at all whatsoever.
[3:00:30] I think it's totally wrong. And that's my comment.
[3:00:34] Thank you, Council Member Weber. I agree with you. I say we stick with the county as we
[3:00:39] move forward and we trust our businesses. And I also heard, I don't know if it's
[3:00:44] confirmed yet, but I believe in terms of jurisdiction, I don't know that we can separate
[3:00:50] right out the eastern portion Coachella Valley from Western Riverside. I was told we have
[3:00:56] to do this as a county and we can't break up the county in terms of lifting restrictions.
[3:01:03] So I just want to stay united with our county and of course encourage people to wear face
[3:01:09] masks, let businesses take control. And also at the same time, we are not getting involved
[3:01:15] with people's civil liberties.
[3:01:18] Because we're also getting inundated with people saying,
[3:01:21] why is the city getting involved in our city liberties?
[3:01:24] I believe we look to the county to set the standard.
[3:01:32] I'm some member, Harning.
[3:01:33] Thank you, Mayor.
[3:01:35] I absolutely agree.
[3:01:37] I don't think there is a person on this council
[3:01:39] that likes government overreach.
[3:01:41] I can assure you that that's the case.
[3:01:45] I think, first of all, wearing a mask is not for yourself, it is for other people.
[3:01:52] And I want to once again emphasize the fact that what we're trying to do is build confidence
[3:02:01] of the people who really have a fear of what's happened.
[3:02:06] And we want to give them a safe and a secure feeling when they come to Palm Desert.
[3:02:11] And all we're trying to do is build confidence with, again, our community members and our visitors.
[3:02:20] And we also want to eliminate confusion. It's easy.
[3:02:26] Put that, as every one of us has said, put the mask around your neck when you come near a person. Cover yourself up.
[3:02:32] be respectful in your physical distancing.
[3:02:36] That's what I think we should require
[3:02:40] and remove the confusion
[3:02:43] and replace it with consumer and visitor confidence.
[3:02:48] That's my, that I think is our point.
[3:02:50] I like to remove the confusion.
[3:02:54] I say we stick with the county.
[3:02:58] Council Member Donovan.
[3:03:00] You know, because everything that everybody is saying
[3:03:05] kind of speaks to me I I wonder I'm looking for a middle ground what if we
[3:03:11] implemented this emergency ordinance but put a time limit on and just said we're
[3:03:14] gonna do this till the end of the month and then we're gonna look at it because
[3:03:18] you know this is moving quickly so you know if we do it then as soon as it
[3:03:25] becomes not necessary then I sure want to be able to to cancel the the
[3:03:29] ordinance but Kathleen I see you shaking your head so maybe that's not such a
[3:03:33] good idea. Well the end of the month is nothing. It's going to be here in no time at all. That's
[3:03:42] about two weeks away and our lives are not going to change dramatically in the next two weeks.
[3:03:52] I understand how divergent our views are and of course we perceive divergent views in our
[3:04:01] in Texas as well. And that's why I pointed to the Lakinda policy, which doesn't go as far as some of the other policies adopted by other cities in the Coachella Valley.
[3:04:18] I might suggest that we start with this perhaps even without trying to legislate about sidewalks
[3:04:32] or parks or hiking trails because that will give us some opportunity to experience whether
[3:04:40] self-regulation in those settings is sufficient.
[3:04:44] Of course, this will be revisited and the policy of mandatory phase coverings was initiated
[3:05:01] by Dr. Kaiser as the county health officer.
[3:05:05] he was operating within state guidance which in essence instructed county
[3:05:13] health officers to make those decisions. The progression of the pandemic may
[3:05:23] cause him to adjust his recommendation six weeks from now. The benefit of
[3:05:34] for the designated health professional to say that a change has happened is that that helps address the concern Council Member Arnick has raised if there is a definitive opinion from the county's health officer, that helps everyone feel comfortable with a change in policy.
[3:06:01] So,
[3:06:06] I would, I am bringing before you and urging upon you adoption of the Lakita policy
[3:06:17] with of course the understanding that any of us can ask to revisit that if we see that
[3:06:25] circumstances have changed and obviously a change of policy from the county health
[3:06:31] officer would be the most clear change in circumstances, but there could be other problems.
[3:06:41] As a friendly amendment, can we take on what Council Member Jonathan suggested, just remove
[3:06:47] paragraph three, which gets into the weeds that we don't need to do?
[3:06:52] If that.
[3:06:53] Oh, sorry. I really have to weigh in here. I just, I'm really baffled by what I'm hearing.
[3:06:58] I'm hearing three people say that you're going to tell me what I need to do.
[3:07:04] This says that you're going to require that I wear face covering all the time.
[3:07:11] And I don't understand.
[3:07:13] We already have a government agency that is telling us all what to do.
[3:07:18] I'm absolutely baffled why three people want to say to me, here's what you need to do.
[3:07:24] I think I have sense enough to know what to do.
[3:07:26] I don't think we need to come out with an order telling our
[3:07:32] citizens in the city of Palm Desert, we know what's best for you
[3:07:36] and we're going to require that you cover up your face.
[3:07:40] I don't think our residents are stupid.
[3:07:42] I think they're smart enough to know to put on a face covering when they go out in public.
[3:07:47] I don't think we need to get involved in their private lives
[3:07:50] and I'm frankly, I'm a little insulted that you want to get involved in my private life.
[3:07:57] It's really bothering me and I don't even know how to address it because it just seems
[3:08:01] so, so wrong. I can't even fathom it. And like Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said, we're divergent.
[3:08:09] Well, we're majorly divergent. If you're going to tell me what I have to do, I think
[3:08:14] that's really, truly wrong.
[3:08:16] Let's see. Let's get, I want to assure you.
[3:08:19] I'm going to jump in.
[3:08:20] We can keep going around the horn on this.
[3:08:23] I want to make a motion that we continue to follow the county guidelines.
[3:08:27] That's my motion.
[3:08:28] Do I have a second?
[3:08:30] Second.
[3:08:30] There was already a motion made that wasn't seconded, but that's because you kind of
[3:08:37] jumped in before I had a chance again.
[3:08:43] There's, we can vote on that and if it doesn't pass, we'll make a different motion.
[3:08:49] Thank you.
[3:08:51] Eddie Clerk, may we have a roll call vote?
[3:08:57] Councilmember Harnick.
[3:08:58] No.
[3:09:01] Councilman Jonathan.
[3:09:07] No.
[3:09:10] Mayor Partem Kelly.
[3:09:12] No.
[3:09:14] Councilmember Weber.
[3:09:15] Yes.
[3:09:17] Mayor Nistandi.
[3:09:19] Yes.
[3:09:19] That motion fell on a 2-3 vote with Council Member Weber and Mayor Neshtandi voting yes,
[3:09:29] and Council Member Jonathan, Council Member Harnick, and Mayor Patem Kelly voting no.
[3:09:37] Mayor, if I can insert a comment here at this point before there's consideration
[3:09:43] of possible alternative motions, ordinarily this is the Council's time to talk and debate
[3:09:51] the policy issues and clearly whether or not we establish independent requirements or executive
[3:09:58] orders of our own is a policy decision left to the City Council. The one thing that I would like
[3:10:04] to add is that for the past two months our staff has worked on educating people as to what the
[3:10:15] current regulations are. In our emergency order declaration that the city council approved,
[3:10:23] we indicated that we would not be making medical recommendations or giving technical advice.
[3:10:32] We would defer to the state and the county and their expertise.
[3:10:38] What we have struggled
[3:10:39] with and the largest volume of interaction we have with our constituents is trying to
[3:10:47] explain what the rules de jure are. Unfortunately, the two other agencies that are able to impose
[3:10:54] regulations, the state and the county, have changed those regulations in recent weeks.
[3:11:02] I would urge if there is an implementation of regulations that are specific to Palm Desert,
[3:11:12] if the City Council wants to go that way, that we not look at approaches that we consider trial
[3:11:19] and then perhaps we can adjust it in the future if it doesn't work. So I would urge the City
[3:11:24] Council to contemplate what they believe is right to an act for a period of time, because
[3:11:32] we will need to work to change messaging that we've pushed out to the public based
[3:11:39] upon the decision you made tonight.
[3:11:42] Nice question on that point, Lori.
[3:11:46] If we approve something tonight, it would be an authorization to you, a city manager,
[3:11:51] to issue an executive order. Is that correct? An emergency? Yeah. And so let's just say
[3:11:58] that at some point the county's request to the state for its own implementation plan
[3:12:04] is actually approved and we want to rescind that emergency order. How quickly could we
[3:12:14] do it? I mean, does it have to wait until the next council meeting? What's the procedure
[3:12:18] for that. If the city council passes or enacts an emergency order, they would need to be the
[3:12:27] ones to release that emergency order. We could do it by scheduling a special meeting to consider the
[3:12:34] issue. So here is the problem. I have two problems with setting a time specific.
[3:12:47] One is that intervening
[3:12:56] events are really going to define how long the policy needs to be in place, not the calendar.
[3:13:06] The second and dear concern I have is if we were to say this is in place for a month,
[3:13:15] it just perpetuates hysteria over what's going to happen at the end of that month.
[3:13:23] And unless conditions have changed significantly, we shouldn't be revisiting this and repeating
[3:13:33] this conversation, you know, every other council meeting. So, clearly, emergency orders are
[3:13:46] adjusted when conditions change, but given the input you've just given us, it strikes
[3:13:55] me clear guidance as to what the policy is in Plum Desert is going to be the best
[3:14:02] to help to staff in answering questions. So if the majority, if there is a majority to
[3:14:16] support the Latino policy without paragraph three, I would certainly embrace that.
[3:14:27] I would second that. And I need to make the comment that this isn't about getting
[3:14:32] into anyone's personal life. This is about making people feel secure and confident to come back to
[3:14:39] Palm Desert and to help our businesses succeed. And that's our goal. When things change, we will
[3:14:47] respond accordingly and appropriately as Palm Desert does.
[3:15:00] And I just like to say, I think we all have made our points very clear. And I think it's
[3:15:06] time to take a vote on this motion. If I may, I'd like to just clarify that the
[3:15:13] motion is to adopt the Akita policy minus paragraph three, but also reformatted to be consistent
[3:15:20] with the POM desert codes because the policy is worded, you know, refers to Akita.
[3:15:26] So now it would be better to have Palm Desert statement at them exactly
[3:15:37] We have a motion and a second. Let's do a roll call vote, please with the city clerk
[3:15:43] Councilmember Harnick. Yes
[3:15:46] That's when Jonathan
[3:15:48] Apologies to my libertarian compatriots. Yes
[3:15:53] Mayor Patem Kelly
[3:15:55] Yes
[3:15:58] Councilmember Weber. No
[3:16:03] No.
[3:16:04] Motion carries on a 3-2 vote.
[3:16:08] Councilmember Weber, Mayor Nistandi voting no.
[3:16:13] Okay.
[3:16:14] We have one last item if we can just push through it and then all we'll have left are
[3:16:19] comments.
[3:16:20] It's we're moving into old business
[3:16:26] and there is a request for authorization to repurpose
[3:16:33] the Invest-Com Desert Economic Development Incentive Program to a Unite-Com Desert Business Support
[3:16:39] Program that provides economic relief upon desert businesses and virtually impacted by
[3:16:44] the COVID-19 public health emergency.
[3:16:47] Do we have a staff report?
[3:16:53] Yes, I believe that we have a team of people here to provide the staff report for you.
[3:16:58] We have Martina Alvarez, Wayne Olson, and somewhere, although I'm not seeing
[3:17:02] him yet, is Thomas Sowell.
[3:17:06] Good evening, mayor and council members. I will try to be brief. I know this has been a long meeting
[3:17:10] I'm going to attempt to share a screen here. Can everybody see the presentation for them? Yes
[3:17:17] Okay
[3:17:18] Let me know if you can hear me. All right
[3:17:21] Thank you for
[3:17:23] Hearing this item. I just wanted to acknowledge a couple people and departments
[3:17:27] This is a culmination of efforts from the marketing department the finance department and community development department along with your
[3:17:33] Council members Jonathan and Kelly who serve on the Economic Development Subcommittee who
[3:17:38] also gave excellent questions to staff last week on April 5th which helped develop the
[3:17:43] policy that you're seeing before you tonight. Wanted to do a brief policy framework. My
[3:17:48] presentation won't be very brief. To date the city has been built upon a model of assessing
[3:17:55] the short and mid and long term capital needs of our community. Up till now there's
[3:18:00] been a number of players in the short-term capital arena, including the SVA, the state
[3:18:04] of California, other community development corporations, along with short-term credit
[3:18:09] mechanisms like business lines of credit and personal lines of credit to help support
[3:18:13] our businesses through this difficult time.
[3:18:18] However, some of these programs are becoming oversubscribed, or eligible applicants are
[3:18:24] not being able to get access to the programs as quickly or as sufficiently as we'd like
[3:18:29] them to.
[3:18:30] It seems to be that pressure is mounting for local entities to assist with this mid-term
[3:18:35] and longer-term capital need.
[3:18:38] In January of this year, the Council passed the Invest Palm Desert Incentive Program, which
[3:18:43] was $2 million of capital improvement incentives that we were going to provide to our business
[3:18:47] community.
[3:18:48] During one of the early emergency meetings at the emergence of the pandemic, it was
[3:18:54] suggested that we should place that on hold while the budget was reviewed and
[3:18:57] and whether those dollars could be reprogrammed to a different purpose.
[3:19:02] As that emerging need has arisen, staff is proposing that we propose a Unite Palm Desert
[3:19:08] Economic Relief Program in the form of five focus areas, and I'll review these very briefly
[3:19:14] and happy to take questions either during each focus area or afterwards.
[3:19:19] The first focus area is an emergency loan program that mimics a lot of the other
[3:19:23] programs that we're seeing through the state. There's only one other city in the valley as
[3:19:28] of now that has a program similar to this and that's Laquita. The emergency loan assistance
[3:19:33] program would be a million dollars of reprogramming, excuse me, of a million dollars of the invest
[3:19:40] palm desert monies and prioritizes palm desert business owners and those that employ palm
[3:19:45] desert residents in the form of a zero-interest no payment loan for 24 months. We would
[3:19:50] stipulate a maximum loan of $25,000 based on your FTE count, and that the loan would
[3:19:56] be forgivable so long as the applicant was able to document that funds were used to mitigate
[3:20:02] the impacts due to COVID.
[3:20:03] The uses can include a number of things, working capital, lease payments, equipment
[3:20:08] lease payments.
[3:20:09] The only thing it can't do is we should exclude capital improvement projects at this
[3:20:13] point under this program only because that triggers prevailing wage, and that will
[3:20:17] make things very, very difficult from an administrative standpoint.
[3:20:21] In the staff report, we're proposing that loan applications be reviewed by a city committee
[3:20:25] and would be authorizing the city manager to do the various administrative documents
[3:20:31] that I'll explain in a bit.
[3:20:34] Focus Area 2 is a business outreach effort.
[3:20:37] These are efforts that we've already conducted as a team.
[3:20:40] The business support and viability team was founded at the emergence of the pandemic.
[3:20:45] staff is from code, community development, marketing team, and economic development have
[3:20:52] been working on a number of items already that have helped our local businesses, including
[3:20:56] a banner program.
[3:20:57] You see them all listed here.
[3:20:59] We've waived the banner sign code temporarily.
[3:21:02] We gave 90-day due date extensions for business licenses.
[3:21:06] We formed a hotline, which we had numbers, dozens and dozens of calls towards and
[3:21:11] continue to receive calls from.
[3:21:14] We've had a number of web resources
[3:21:16] and our efforts have been focused on getting the word out,
[3:21:20] informing our local businesses
[3:21:21] where they can access this short-term capital
[3:21:23] and helping them connect to the appropriate services
[3:21:26] in the community like the SBDC
[3:21:28] who is helping assist businesses with loan applications.
[3:21:31] And of course, the marketing team
[3:21:32] has had a very strong social media presence
[3:21:35] on our main COVID webpage.
[3:21:38] The focus area 3 addresses a major sector of our local economy, which is hospitality.
[3:21:45] We're proposing that we earmark $900,000 for this program.
[3:21:49] This focus area is designed to leverage outcomes, which was a major direction from the subcommittee.
[3:21:55] This was originally proposed as a loading program.
[3:21:57] We're shifting it more towards a guest tourist voucher program.
[3:22:01] The program is based on other best management practices from other tourist assassination
[3:22:04] location locations. For example, Sicily, Italy, the town's exotic contributed $50 million to a program
[3:22:10] very similar to this. And Long Beach, actually a more local model has been looking at a hospitality
[3:22:16] program that supports their hospitality industry specifically. So we're here, we're recommending
[3:22:22] that 900,000 of the 2 million be earmarked for this program. And unlike a straight to owner
[3:22:27] loan program that may have limited outcomes for this particular sector, about your program
[3:22:31] can be able to capitalize on the pent-up travel intent and drives room nights. So the idea behind
[3:22:36] this is, for example, buy a certain amount of hotel room nights and get some other amount
[3:22:43] free or discounted, and these dollars would be going towards creating that.
[3:22:47] This focus area needs to be developed further and a concert with the city's marketing team,
[3:22:52] as well as additional input from our city's hospitality professionals.
[3:22:56] We propose that the staff bring back a more formalized program that's time better to
[3:23:00] the reopening of our hospitality sector, but, you know, within the next month or so.
[3:23:05] But we would like this earmark now in order to be able to inform the types of voucher
[3:23:08] programs that we're going to be developing.
[3:23:12] This focus area is regarding priority one C.V. I'm actually speaking to you with two
[3:23:18] hats tonight.
[3:23:18] I'm a staff member of this City of Palm Desert, but I was also named the CEO of Priority
[3:23:23] One C.V., which is our initiative towards securing a standalone four-year campus.
[3:23:28] the council created this 501c4 in March and we have had two board meetings a
[3:23:37] portion of your council is on the board as well as other regional partners and the
[3:23:41] city was gracious enough to fund a hundred thousand dollars of seed capital
[3:23:45] for the program. Our community pledges our community partners that had
[3:23:49] pledged dollars previous to COVID were not able to deliver so this delivers
[3:23:52] another fifty thousand dollars for a total of a hundred fifty thousand
[3:23:56] dollars to help support the priority 1CV initiatives.
[3:24:00] And then finally, we are recommending $50,000 for a partner of businesses. Our community
[3:24:05] partners, you heard earlier from Mr. Gary, he's providing $240,000 of rental assistance.
[3:24:12] In total, we're providing about $850,000 of CDVG slash CV funding to our nonprofit
[3:24:20] off of the community. This $50,000 is to help support other business-focused organizations
[3:24:27] within the community, maybe business improvement districts or chambers for that example, and
[3:24:32] the opportunity to develop other longer-term strategic policy initiatives that are going
[3:24:36] to support that need to support the longer-term capital that's going to be happening, the
[3:24:41] pressures on that within the coming, I'd say, 12 months or so.
[3:24:45] So, this slide summarizes the program. It's a $2 million Unite Palm Desert economic relief
[3:24:52] package. I have an explanation of how we're proposing to fund this program, a million
[3:24:57] dollars for the emergency loan assistance program, $900,000 towards the hospitality
[3:25:01] voucher program, $50,000 to the CSU expansion efforts, and $50,000 to the community
[3:25:07] partners for a total of $2 million. The Economic Development Subcommittee requested
[3:25:12] staff check in with the Invest Palm Desert applicants, which was wise. The responses
[3:25:19] before you, nearly 70% I didn't get a response from or they said simply no, we
[3:25:23] aren't moving forward due to the challenges of the current business
[3:25:26] climate. The area I want you to focus on is the number to the right. The
[3:25:31] applicants that gave me assured yes, meaning we've got our plans. In fact
[3:25:34] one applicant was before the ARC on Tuesday. 13% of the respondents of the
[3:25:41] applicant pool that have indicated they would like to apply were proactively
[3:25:46] stating yes we're moving forward and we have plans those projects are going to
[3:25:50] total about ballpark 200 to 350 thousand dollars and under the current
[3:25:55] and best program the city portion of that would be approximately 100 to 175
[3:25:59] thousand if you recall we were going to match those dollar for dollar and
[3:26:03] again that would assume if we funded those that that would mean that the
[3:26:07] applications are acceptable to the city. If we reprogram the entirety of the 2 million dollars
[3:26:15] from Invest Palm Desert into the Economic Relief Program, it will require that the council identify
[3:26:20] an additional 100,000 to 175,000 to reserve towards the Invest Incent Program. However,
[3:26:27] the recommendation before you is to fully suspend the Invest Palm Desert Incentive Program
[3:26:33] and direct all of the monies towards this economic relief program as I've described it.
[3:26:38] So this is an attempt to give you a quick overhead. The current allocations, you'll see the first
[3:26:44] line is the available economic development reserves is $4 million. Invest Palm Desert passed in
[3:26:49] January was $2 million, and then the priority one support was $100,000. So we have total reserves
[3:26:54] remaining of $1.9 million. Below is just showing you how the math works. We have $1.9 million
[3:27:01] remaining, we would propose to unallocate Invest Palm Desert dollars and suspend the program
[3:27:06] temporarily and fund the entire program of the Unite Palm Desert allocation for $2 million,
[3:27:12] which leaves $1.9 million of economic development reserves, which is, while unallocated, is
[3:27:20] needed for other programs.
[3:27:23] So next steps I would propose is to finalize the administrative and legal documents that
[3:27:27] be primarily associated with the Loan Program Focus Area 1, and then we want to fold this
[3:27:33] in and launch it with our Unite Palm Desert overall campaign. Thomas Sol is our marketing
[3:27:38] manager is here to answer any questions about that, and as well as Martín Alvarez, our
[3:27:42] director of economic development is here to help support the presentation as well.
[3:27:47] So then, of course, we need to administer the Load Program. I think we could maybe
[3:27:51] get it out late June of 2020 and then develop the hospitality program over the
[3:27:56] coming months and deliver something to you in concert with the reopening of our hospitality
[3:28:01] industry.
[3:28:02] So I just want to direct the council's attention to the third item.
[3:28:08] It was brought up in between the time that the report was printed and today this policy
[3:28:14] was developed very quickly over the course of the last two weeks that we need to authorize
[3:28:19] the city manager to implement the program as well so that that would be included in
[3:28:23] the recommendations.
[3:28:25] That's all I have at the moment. I can certainly open up to questions, and staff is available.
[3:28:31] I'm sorry, you took that last slide down before I could even – it's not in our packet, correct?
[3:28:40] The first two recommendations are in your packet.
[3:28:43] Oh, I'm sorry. Are you asking if the slide presentation is in your packet?
[3:28:46] With this particular information, I see the two million thing.
[3:28:51] But let me back up to another slide you showed that is not in my packet, and that's the one where you said applicants
[3:28:57] Check in and you had 70% no response or you said no. Thank you. I don't see that
[3:29:04] Information here, so I'm curious where that came from
[3:29:09] I'm not I'm
[3:29:11] Unfortunately, not sure what packet you were delivered from the clerk the presentation was being developed over the course of the last few days
[3:29:19] this is a refinement of information that the economic development subcommittee requested.
[3:29:23] So perhaps you could explain to me where this information came from because you said applicants
[3:29:28] with no response. So that means you reached out to them?
[3:29:32] Correct. We had about 25 interested parties within the city who were interested in applying
[3:29:39] for the Invest Palm Desert program as it was passed in January of this year.
[3:29:43] 70% of those respondents either said no or they weren't, excuse me, 70% of the 25 either
[3:29:51] didn't respond at all or they said no, we aren't.
[3:30:00] Moving forward. 13 percent of those respondents, and frankly, that's two, responded, yes, we
[3:30:07] are moving forward and we have plans and we're working diligently to push our projects forward.
[3:30:11] Clarification, we're only talking about 25 businesses or people who responded in January.
[3:30:18] And when they responded, 70 percent said, no, thank you. And two people said, yes,
[3:30:24] is that what you're saying here?
[3:30:26] The first part is correct. I'm sorry that I'm offering a confusing explanation. The
[3:30:30] first part was correct, that we had about 25 interested applicants in the Invest Palm
[3:30:35] Desert program. The second part was following the April 5 economic development subcommittee
[3:30:41] meeting, council members Jonathan and Kelly recommended that we reach out to those applicants
[3:30:47] to see what was their interest in the Invest Palm Desert program. If you remember, at
[3:30:53] the emergency meeting that was held by the council, it was recommended that we hold these
[3:30:57] dollars, so put a, frankly, an administrative hold on the Invest Palm Desert Program.
[3:31:03] I anticipated that the question from the council would be, well, if we are going to
[3:31:07] reallocate the entire $2 million from the invest to the Economic Relief Program, what
[3:31:12] impact would that have on the current interested applicants for the Invest Palm Desert Program?
[3:31:16] And this is an attempt to explain that.
[3:31:19] Yeah, because I'm very surprised.
[3:31:20] I thought we had a lot of people that were very, very interested in this, and it doesn't
[3:31:24] sound that way at all.
[3:31:26] So I'm a little bit surprised.
[3:31:28] Do you think they're puzzled because they had changed a little bit?
[3:31:32] Or are they?
[3:31:33] No.
[3:31:33] No.
[3:31:34] The interest was strong.
[3:31:35] You're absolutely correct.
[3:31:36] The interest was strong, very strong in the program.
[3:31:38] And I anticipated that we'd have full subscription of the $2 million.
[3:31:42] The problem is COVID hit, and so a lot of those programs were capital improvement
[3:31:46] programs and business expansion programs, and they just simply can't move forward
[3:31:50] in an uncertain future.
[3:31:55] May I ask a question?
[3:32:01] On Council Member Webber's
[3:32:04] questioning, the two projects that it looks like it's a yes. Are they on
[3:32:12] El Paseo or are they on San Pablo? Where are they? One is on 111 and one is on
[3:32:17] what it's the bumping grind plaza and the other one is a business on 111.
[3:32:23] bumping grand plaza. That's the former Tilted Killed and that adjacent building to the south?
[3:32:31] I see. Thank you. Question? This is Mayor Pro Tem Kelly.
[3:32:39] Is there a way to essentially
[3:32:45] and top these recommendations, but stay in conversation with those two businesses long
[3:32:54] enough for staff to reach a conclusion as to whether these projects would really help the city
[3:33:03] emerge positively from the current challenge. Because if we have two businesses that want
[3:33:14] to do something that would help us emerge constructively from present conditions. I
[3:33:22] hate to just drop that.
[3:33:26] If I understood your question correctly, yes. I believe there's
[3:33:30] a way for us to be adaptable to the projects that are being proposed timelines. Keep in
[3:33:36] mind there is also $1.9 million of economic development reserves available that could
[3:33:42] be redirected towards those two individual projects.
[3:33:45] As the program has proposed to you tonight, we're recommending that we unallocate from
[3:33:51] Invest Palm Desert and suspend that program and then redirect those funds towards this
[3:33:57] economic relief program.
[3:33:59] So yes, there's a possibility we could work with those two businesses and find a way
[3:34:03] to present this information to the council closer to the time that they're moving
[3:34:07] forward.
[3:34:09] you know it would be a conversation with the businesses obviously and I'm
[3:34:12] happy to report back to the council what that would look like. I have a lot of
[3:34:18] concern that if we had two businesses that went forward to the point
[3:34:23] that did you say one or both were in front of ARC based on the fact that
[3:34:28] there was a one-to-one match with the city I think we have to find a way
[3:34:34] to make good on our word if they move forward or find a way to at least, you know, work with
[3:34:41] them in some way. And so, as Mayor Pro Tem Kelly said, we got to keep the conversation
[3:34:46] open.
[3:34:47] And then I would just like to ask a question, too. In terms of repurposing this money
[3:34:53] for COVID-related relief, under the impression or understanding, I should say, that FEMA
[3:35:01] will reimburse the city 75 percent. So we can really expand the money that's being repurposed
[3:35:09] because we're going to get 75 percent of it. Is that correct, Mr. Olson?
[3:35:16] Mayor Nassanti, that's a great question. FEMA reimburses the city for expenses related
[3:35:21] to the actual city expenses of typically emergency management, where we may be able
[3:35:27] able to find match dollars for this is through the Economic Development Agency just put out
[3:35:31] a new notice of funding under their grant program, and they have a very strong match program.
[3:35:35] And I believe we could – I think we could construct this program in such a way that
[3:35:39] we would be able to leverage those federal dollars, effectively reimbursing the million
[3:35:44] dollars.
[3:35:45] There'll be a little trick with, if it's forgivable, there's not really technically
[3:35:48] a Revolving Loan Fund, and therefore immatchable.
[3:35:50] but I believe the Economic Development Agency grant would be able to assist us with finding
[3:35:58] some more dollars to direct towards this program and others. I don't know, Martin, I think you
[3:36:04] were on the webinar as well. I don't know if you have anything, any thoughts?
[3:36:07] Mayor, to answer your question, relative to FEMA, and I believe our city attorney is on a call
[3:36:13] as well. I know his firm has done a lot of research and probably can apply on that particular
[3:36:18] option question, but yes, Mr. Olsen is correct. There's possibly some EDA funds, economic
[3:36:24] development agency funds that we're going to be trying to leverage.
[3:36:28] We did get clarification from BB&K on this. They looked into it. We had initially thought
[3:36:33] and hoped that economic development incentive programs would be reimbursable up to 75%
[3:36:39] out of the CARES Act funding or out of FEMA and the final opinion out of BB&K was that that was
[3:36:49] not the case and that it would not be eligible. If I could just add to that. HR6800 is being
[3:36:56] reviewed by the House. I'm sure you all saw the news yesterday that's a stimulus for.
[3:37:02] That will and does have language. I read the bill draft of the bill. It does have language
[3:37:07] that would reimburse cities and rural areas that have populations less than $500,000 for
[3:37:13] COVID-related expenses.
[3:37:16] The U.S. Senate is suspicious of this bill as it's drafted, and so we'll have to wait
[3:37:21] and see how that comes out of the federal government.
[3:37:23] But there's a possibility there'll be another source of funds to reimburse this program as
[3:37:27] well through stimulus for, but again, that's just in the early stages at the federal
[3:37:32] level.
[3:37:33] Also, it was my understanding that under the Original Cares Act, there was an allocation
[3:37:39] through grants that could help fund this program.
[3:37:44] My understanding, Bob, is that that program is for cities above $500,000 for reimbursements.
[3:37:50] And my understanding is that there isn't additional money, and if it is additional
[3:37:54] money, it's directed to the EDA as an administrator of those funds.
[3:37:58] And so we would be, you know, tackling the same pot of funds either way.
[3:38:05] Yeah, I have two questions.
[3:38:07] Could you send your PowerPoint deck to the council members so we have a chance to review
[3:38:13] it as well and have it?
[3:38:15] Yes.
[3:38:16] Okay.
[3:38:16] And the second thing is I was on a phone call with SCAG today with congressman in
[3:38:22] the SCAG area who discussed that bill.
[3:38:24] If it's successful, and, you know, in the House of Representatives, it certainly may be, I don't know.
[3:38:32] There's not even a Senate vote scheduled, and I'm not so sure it's the way it's written today.
[3:38:39] It would be successful.
[3:38:42] But there is an appropriation that would go through Sacramento and go to cities at a per capita formula that the first year would,
[3:38:52] and let's see if I can get this right would give Palm Desert 19.6 the second year 19.6 million
[3:38:59] the second year it would be 9.8 million but that's how it is today I am not so sure that this bill
[3:39:11] as it's written is going to pass so that's all speculation if
[3:39:26] there are any other questions
[3:39:29] do we want to open this up? I don't see somebody. Somebody's raising their hand. The power point
[3:39:35] is in my way. I can't see everybody. I can stop the share on that. Okay. Now I can see everybody.
[3:39:42] Any other questions?
[3:39:47] I don't see any. So having said that, are we open for discussion then?
[3:39:54] Councilmember Jonathan. Thank you. So, first of all, Wayne or Thomas,
[3:40:03] that was one groovy logo. I really dig it, rechanneling my hippie days here.
[3:40:11] So, yeah,
[3:40:12] I know a lot of the discussion was about in Best Palm Desert, but I want to shift the
[3:40:15] focus a little bit to actually the item that's before us. And that's this economic
[3:40:22] development incentive program. And I'm so proud of us. You know, small government is
[3:40:29] able to react and pivot much more quickly than big government. And here we are doing
[3:40:34] it. Invest Palm Desert made a lot of sense when we adopted it. And I really want to get back
[3:40:41] to that program because I think it will be effective once we get through this crisis.
[3:40:45] But to channel those dollars into something that is more impactful on helping our businesses
[3:40:49] this is, I think, the right way to go.
[3:40:52] One of the things that I really like about this program is that it doesn't duplicate
[3:40:57] what's already out there, it supplements it.
[3:41:00] And I think, as you said earlier, Wayne, so I think that that's very important.
[3:41:07] I would support adopting the program, and then the Invest Palm Desert and the two
[3:41:14] current applicants, that's kind of a thorny web because can we really accept two and
[3:41:18] close the door to the others. It's it's a thorny issue. I don't think we need to
[3:41:22] address that tonight. I think staff has heard that we want to continue conversations
[3:41:26] with those applicants if they're standouts like wait if we if we invest in
[3:41:31] them we're gonna have a brand new restaurant operating immediately employing
[3:41:35] 20 people or whatever we might say okay let's just do that those ones but
[3:41:39] but otherwise we might not so I think that can just be as Mayor Pro Temps
[3:41:43] to just a separate, I am a separate discussion.
[3:41:46] But as it stands now,
[3:41:48] I think that this is a terrific program.
[3:41:50] I think it'll be very impactful
[3:41:52] and will precisely target economic recovery.
[3:41:56] I really like after our committee's discussion
[3:41:59] what you came up with,
[3:42:00] with regards to the hotel program,
[3:42:03] rather than giving money to hotels
[3:42:05] and wondering, you know, where's it gonna go?
[3:42:07] We're creating a program that incentivizes tourists
[3:42:10] to come back to Palm Desert and that's huge
[3:42:13] because when they're here, they're going to be spending their money again and helping all
[3:42:18] our other businesses and generating TOT and sales tax. So that's brilliant. So this is great.
[3:42:24] I fully support it. Thank you.
[3:42:29] Thank you, Council Member Jonathan of Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Kelly.
[3:42:34] All of you. Wonderful. I know you've worked hard on it. I appreciate all your hard efforts.
[3:42:41] I just want to reinforce the suggestion that was just made as to the two people who did
[3:42:52] want to move forward with an infest-farm-tessert application that our instruction is to stay
[3:43:02] stay in conversation which means which encourages staff to exercise judgment to
[3:43:11] reach a recommendation as to whether you think these projects really do move the
[3:43:17] ball forward in a sufficiently significant way to come back and propose
[3:43:24] that we dip into the pot.
[3:43:29] Thank you councilmember mayor for Tim
[3:43:32] Kathleen Kelly and I see Council Member Harding.
[3:43:35] Just a couple of comments. I really want to thank Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and Council Member
[3:43:41] Jonathan for all the work. And the economic development team and marketing has done an
[3:43:48] amazing job. And everything that Savvy Jonathan said, everything that Kathleen Kelly said,
[3:43:54] this is so impressive what we're doing and so inspiring. And this is the kind
[3:43:59] thing we need to do right now to create that economic loop so that we generate the tax funds
[3:44:05] that we want back in our city and we help our businesses. This is exciting. And Wayne and
[3:44:13] Martine and Thomas disappeared, but I know he's somewhere there. This is really outstanding.
[3:44:21] And thank you so much for all your hard work on this. Thank you.
[3:44:24] All
[3:44:28] right, with all the comments, are we ready to make a motion to adopt this new repurposing
[3:44:37] of the economic development fund?
[3:44:40] Move approval.
[3:44:42] Do I have a second?
[3:44:45] I'll second it then.
[3:44:46] Okay.
[3:44:48] All right.
[3:44:50] City Clerk, may we please have roll call?
[3:45:02] A roll floor, no.
[3:45:03] A roll floor,軌 sprin.
[3:45:03] Yes.
[3:45:05] Councilman Johnathan.
[3:45:07] Yes.
[3:45:09] Mayor Pertim Kelly.ylci
[3:45:12] Яел leuke ring. Councilmember
[3:45:15] Webber.
[3:45:20] Councilmember
[3:45:21] Webber, you're muted. Yes.
[3:45:24] And Mayor
[3:45:25] Nistandi? Yes.
[3:45:27] Motion carries
[3:45:28] 5-0 with the added recommendation, number three.
[3:45:34] Okay, so
[3:45:35] now we'll move on to mayor and council number coming.
[3:45:38] coming.
[3:45:38] comments. Councilmember Harnick?
[3:45:43] I had so much and I wouldn't dare after this length
[3:45:46] of a meeting give it to you right now. So, it was all RCTC and all Southern California
[3:45:51] Association of Governments and there's good news and medium news, but it's all the news
[3:45:56] that you would expect. So, I'll share it another time. Thank you. Councilmember Jonathan.
[3:46:02] In that spirit, none. Thank you. Councilmember Kessling. I'm going to say Mayor Pro Tem
[3:46:08] Captain. There we go. Not, not sensitive about that. I would say none, except I have to share with
[3:46:19] you all that at the last regional council meeting of SCAC, our colleague, Jen Harnick, was chosen to be
[3:46:32] the nominees that will come before the General Assembly to be second Vice President of the
[3:46:42] SKAG Regional Council, which puts her in the line of discussion.
[3:46:50] Congratulations.
[3:46:51] And it's just super to have a prompt desert in such a significant position of influence.
[3:47:04] Congratulations. Thank you.
[3:47:06] Health member Weber.
[3:47:09] Yes, my only comment is that I'm very appreciative of the committees, commissions, and the other organizations that we sit on for coming together so quickly with this marble.
[3:47:21] and Bench and Zoom so that we can have meetings and get back to business because I have found
[3:47:26] it very helpful for us to be getting back to business because time goes by really fast.
[3:47:31] Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. And so Ben,
[3:47:36] are there any City Council requests for action? Just a real quick one. And that's Mayor Pro Tem
[3:47:43] Kelly said it, I think was on last meeting, something about the
[3:47:47] signs at San Luis Rey and El Paseo and it's like it's oh my gosh be careful delays it's
[3:47:58] terrible I think a sign that said temporary four-way stop ahead would be
[3:48:06] sufficient rather than you know portraying terrible delays and awful
[3:48:13] for a voting type of remark.
[3:48:17] So if we could change those,
[3:48:18] just to say four ways stop ahead,
[3:48:21] I think we'd be in better shape, that's it.
[3:48:24] Okay, thank you.
[3:48:25] City Manager.
[3:48:27] No report.
[3:48:28] City Attorney.
[3:48:32] No report.
[3:48:33] City Clerk.
[3:48:35] Just a reminder of the budget study session
[3:48:37] on Tuesday, May 19th, 1 to 5 p.m.
[3:48:41] Okay, moving right along.
[3:48:42] We will move on to the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Palm Desert
[3:48:48] Redevelopment Agency.
[3:48:49] They've already gone through the Consent Calendar and are there any, there's no consent items
[3:48:57] held over.
[3:48:58] Reports remarked, the Successor Agency Board items requiring action, Executive Director.
[3:49:03] No report.
[3:49:04] Chair and members of the Successor Agency.
[3:49:09] Okay, then we'll move on to the common housing authority and the consent calendar we've already gone through. There were no consent items held over.
[3:49:20] Are there any reports, remarks and authority board items requiring action? Executive director.
[3:49:28] No report.
[3:49:29] Chairman and members of the authority.
[3:49:33] Okay. And then lastly, City Clerk, are there any other comments that need to be read into the record?
[3:49:38] None. Thank you.
[3:49:39] with that we will adjourn this meeting thank you thank you everybody and all
[3:49:50] right enjoy that what's rest of enjoy what's the rest of your evening mayor
[3:49:56] your pro tem are we on for tomorrow morning I have a somewhat busy day